BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2403
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH
Jim Wood, Chair
AB 2403
(Bloom) - As Amended April 5, 2016
SUBJECT: Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facilities.
SUMMARY: Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)
to deny an application for a new alcoholism or drug abuse
recovery or treatment facility license if the proposed location
is within 300 feet of an existing facility. Establishes a
definition for integral facilities and permits integral
facilities to be subject to local regulations and ordinances as
specified. Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines "integral facilities" as any combination of two or
more facilities that collectively serve seven or more persons,
including, but not limited to, facilities that provide housing
in one facility and recovery programming, treatment, meals, or
any other service at another facility, or facilities that
assign staff or a consultant to provide services to or in more
than one facility.
2)Excludes from the definition of integral facilities the
licensee or members of the licensee's family or persons
employed as facility staff, as specified.
3)Defines "overconcentration" as two or more alcoholism or drug
AB 2403
Page 2
abuse recovery or treatment facilities established within 300
feet or less of each other as measured from the nearest
property line on which an existing facility is located to the
nearest property line of the proposed facility. Specifies
that the siting of facilities that combine to form integral
facilities within 300 feet of one is not considered
overconcentration.
4)Requires DHCS to deny an application for a new facility
license if the proposed location is in proximity to an
existing facility that would result in overconcentration.
5)Permits DHCS to approve a separation distance of less than 300
feet if the proximity of facilities to one another would not
conflict with regulations of the city or county in which the
proposed facility will be located.
6)Permits cities or counties to request denial of the license
applied for on the basis of an overconcentration of
facilities.
7)Requires, at least 45 days prior to approving any application
for a new facility, DHCS or a county licensing agency to
notify the planning agency of the city or of the county of the
proposed location of the facility.
8)Excludes integral facilities, from existing law requirements
that prohibit local ordinances from excluding alcoholism or
drug abuse facilities as specified.
9)Gives standing to a city, county, or city and county whose
application of zoning ordinances to a licensed treatment to
pursue any available administrative appeals or otherwise seek
judicial review of the licensing decision of DHCS for a
facility that serves six or fewer persons.
10)Requires that affected local agencies be reimbursed if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains
costs mandated by the state.
AB 2403
Page 3
EXISTING LAW:
1)Establishes DHCS as the sole licensing authority for adult
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities.
Permits new licenses to be issued for a period of two years,
and requires DHCS to conduct onsite program visits for
compliance at least once during the two year licensing period.
2)Defines "alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facility" (treatment facility) as any premise, place, or
building that provides 24-hour residential nonmedical services
to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol,
drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need
alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or
detoxification services.
3)Establishes requirements for application to DHCS for licensure
of a facility, requires DHCS to terminate licensure if these
requirements are not met, and authorizes DHCS to deny
applicants that do not demonstrate an ability to comply with
specified requirements.
4)Requires, if an applicant intends to provide incidental
medical services, such as obtaining medical histories,
monitoring health status, testing associated with
detoxification from alcohol or drugs, and overseeing patient
self-administered medications, evidence of a valid license of
a physician and surgeon who will provide or oversee those
services, and any other information deemed appropriate by
DHCS, as specified.
AB 2403
Page 4
5)Permits DHCS to issue single licenses to residential
facilities and a facility where separate buildings or portions
of a residential facility are integral components of a single
treatment facility and all of the components of the facility
are managed by the same licensee.
6)Authorizes DHCS to assess civil penalties on facilities that
provide alcoholism or drug abuse recovery, treatment, or
detoxification services without a license.
7)Requires a treatment facility that serves six or fewer persons
to be considered a residential use of property whether or not
unrelated persons are living together. Requires the residents
and operators of the facility to be considered a family for
the purposes of any law or zoning ordinance that relates to
the residential use of property.
8)Excludes, for the purposes of local ordinances, a treatment
facility that serves six or fewer persons from the definition
of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for
the care of minors, the aged, or persons with mental health
disorders, foster care home, guest home, rest home, community
residence, or other similar term that implies that the
alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment home is a
business run for profit or differs in any other way from a
single-family residence.
9)Authorizes a city, county, or other local public entity from
placing restrictions on building heights, setback, lot
dimensions, or placement of signs of a treatment facility that
AB 2403
Page 5
serves six or fewer persons as long as the restrictions are
identical to those applied to other single-family residences.
10)Specifies that any local ordinance that deals with health and
safety, building standards, environmental impact standards, or
any other matter within the jurisdiction of a local public
entity also applies to a treatment facility, however, local
ordinances cannot distinguish treatment facilities that serve
six or fewer persons from other single-family dwellings or
distinguish residents of treatment facilities from persons who
reside in other single-family dwellings.
11)Prohibits a conditional use permit, zoning variance, or other
zoning clearance from being required of an alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility that serves six or fewer
persons that is not required of a single-family residence in
the same zone.
12)Prohibits, under the California Fair Employment and Housing
Act (FEHA), discrimination against any person in any housing
accommodation on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, or
disability. Specifies that discriminatory land use
regulations, zoning laws, and restrictive covenants are
unlawful acts.
13)Prohibits under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (ADA), prohibits discrimination by any public entity
by reason of an individual's disability. Makes it unlawful,
under the federal Fair Housing Act, to make unavailable or
deny, a dwelling to any buyer or renter because of a
disability.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal
AB 2403
Page 6
committee.
COMMENTS:
1)PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, residential
group home facilities provide valuable rehabilitation and
support services in a therapeutic environment, which can
benefit both individual patients and the greater community. A
rehabilitation facility with six beds in a single-family home
is welcome in any neighborhood. It is good for the community,
good for the neighbors, and more importantly, good for the
patient who is trying to recover. The author states that in
establishing residential group home facilities, it was not
anticipated that existing laws would be manipulated for the
advantage of business owners to garner maximum profits.
Business owners have found loopholes within the existing laws
and have exploited them for personal gain. The single
rehabilitation facility nestled into the residential
neighborhood has been taken over by companies that have
created multi-structure, campus-style facilities within a
residentially zoned neighborhood. The overconcentrated campus
style facilities are more profitable than standalone
facilities and they can drastically change the character of a
neighborhood, causing it to become more similar to a hospital
zone or busy commercial center. Most importantly, the campus
style facilities eliminate a vital benefit to the patient,
which is to become part of the fabric of a community. The
author states that with this bill, cities and counties would
be given notice of state license applications, and the
municipality could help recognize overconcentration, which is
defined as having two facilities separated by less than 300
feet. The author concludes that this measure would simply
provide consistency with all other state licensed group homes
to protect existing neighborhoods and protect the therapeutic,
nurturing environment that benefits all categories of
protected residence recovering in state licensed group homes.
AB 2403
Page 7
2)BACKGROUND. Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment
facilities provide 24- hour non-medical care and specialize in
providing services to chemically dependent adults who do not
require treatment in an acute-care medical facility on an
inpatient, intensive outpatient, outpatient, and partial
hospitalization basis. These facilities range in size from
six-bed facilities in residential neighborhoods to centers
that accommodate more than 100 beds. The basic services
provided by facilities include group, individual and
educational sessions, alcoholism or drug abuse recovery and
treatment planning. Detoxification services are also provided
and are defined by the DHCS as services to support and assist
an individual in the alcohol and/or drug withdrawal process
and to explore plans for continued treatment. These services
can be provided by a variety of health care providers such as
alcohol and drug counselors, mental health therapists, social
workers, psychologists, nurses and physicians.
From 1976 to 2014, the National Institute on Drug Abuse
supported the Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), a
network of local drug abuse experts who reported semiannually
on drug trends and emerging issues in sentinel sites including
major metropolitan areas and some states around the United
States. CEWG monitoring included the cities of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco. As of 2014, all of the
California cities monitored by the CEWG were experiencing an
increase in incidences of drug abuse including heroin,
prescription drugs and synthetic drug abuse.
a) ADA, Fair Housing and Equal Protection. The FEHA makes
it illegal to engage in various discriminatory practices
AB 2403
Page 8
relating to the sale and rental of housing based on race,
color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin,
ancestry, familial status, or disability. The definition
of a disability includes individuals recovering from
substance abuse. The FEHA also prohibits land use
regulations, zoning ordinances, and restrictive covenants
from discriminating in housing on the basis of the
aforementioned categories.
Additionally, the ADA gives civil rights protection to
individuals with disabilities, similar to the protection
provided to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national
origin, and religion. Under these Federal laws, an
individual with a "disability" is someone who has a current
"physical or mental impairment" that "substantially limits"
one or more of that person's "major life activities," such
as caring for one's self, working, etc., or as a record of
such a substantially limiting impairment, or is regarded as
having such an impairment. Specifically, the ADA applies
to those who have successfully completed a drug
rehabilitation program, or who are currently enrolled in
such programs. A document published by the federal
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
entitled, "Know your Rights" explains the Federal laws that
prohibit discrimination against individuals with
disabilities and how they protect people receiving
addiction detoxification or maintenance treatment. The
document discusses discrimination as treating someone less
favorably than someone else because he or she has a
disability, once had a disability, or is regarded as having
a disability and states that because addiction is a chronic
disease, employers, landlords, government agencies, and
health care and treatment providers must comply with
anti-discrimination laws that protect people with
disabilities when working with individuals recovering from
addiction.
AB 2403
Page 9
b) Pacific Shores Properties v. City of Newport Beach
(Pacific shores). In the late 1990s, the number of
residential facilities for recovering drug and alcohol
abusers began to increase in the City of Newport Beach. By
April of 2007, 73 homes existed in the city, only 48 of
which were licensed. Among these homes were Pacific Shores
Properties LLC, Newport Coast Recovery LLC (NCR), and
Yellowstone Women's First Step House, Inc. (collectively,
the "Group Homes"). Pacific Shores and Yellowstone were
unlicensed, while NCR provided services to more than seven
individuals at a time and was therefore a state-licensed
facility. As a result of the increasing number of group
homes, the City's residents began voicing hostile
complaints and concerns. In 2008, responding to resident
discontent, the City of Newport Beach drafted an ordinance
that subjected "residential care facilities" to strict
zoning requirements and significantly limiting both the
continued existence of group homes and the creation of new
ones. These new restrictions had an almost immediate
impact on residential treatment facilities, and by 2009,
the number of group housing opportunities was reduced by
40% and altogether shutting down about one-third of group
homes. In 2010, the Group Homes filed suit against the
City alleging discrimination under the FHA, the ADA, the
California FEHA, and the Equal Protection Clause. While
the district court ruled in favor of the City of Newport
Beach, the Group Homes appealed this decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2013,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision and held that the ordinance enacted by the
City of Newport discriminated against residential treatment
facilities on the basis of disability, and that its
enactment and enforcement harmed a protected class and was
therefore in violation of federal law.
c) Additional Legal Concerns. The supporters provided the
Committee with a 1997 Legislative Counsel Opinion that
AB 2403
Page 10
states, "A state or local government entity may not
regulate 'sober living homes' through dispersal or distance
requirements, conditional use permits, or business
licenses, or zoning restrictions?unless the regulation
benefits the protected class, or responds to a legitimate
safety concern raised by the individuals affected rather
than being based on stereotypes." It is unclear how the
provisions of this bill, that would effectively restrict
treatment availability for those needing alcohol or drug
treatment services, benefit the protected class.
Additionally the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision
in Pacific Shores would preempt this opinion.
d) Siting Difficulties. A technical assistance publication
published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (DHHS) entitled "Siting Drug and Alcohol Treatment
Programs: Legal Challenges to the NIMBY Syndrome" states
that community opposition, 'not in my backyard (NIMBY),
prevents or delays the siting of treatment programs, even
when an already existing program tries to relocate. NIMBY
is often targeted toward other types of health and social
service facilities, like shelters for the homeless, group
homes for the mentally ill, halfway houses for
ex-offenders, and health-related facilities for those with
AIDS. According to DHHS, many discriminatory zoning
ordinances and practices may be unlawful under the FHA and
the ADA. It is also noted that communities often fear the
decline of property values and increased crime because of
residential treatment facilities in the neighborhood.
However, the DHHS document states that in almost every
instance a community's fears are unfounded, as residential
treatment facilities pose no danger to the health and
welfare of neighbors nor draw substance abusers or pushers
to the area.
AB 2403
Page 11
e) Recent substance use treatment reforms. Medicaid is
playing an increasingly important role as a payor for
services provided to individuals with substance abuse
disorder (SUD) in the United States. An estimated 12% of
adult Medicaid beneficiaries ages 18-64 have an SUD. The
Patient Prot3ection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) included
one of the largest expansions of mental health and SUD
coverage in a generation by adding mental health and
substance use disorder services as an Essential Health
Benefit category. In July of 2015, in response to this
growing need, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) notified states of opportunities to design service
delivery systems for individuals with SUD, including a new
opportunity for demonstration projects approved under
section 1115 of the Social Security Act to ensure that a
continuum of care is available to individuals with SUD.
Participating states are eligible to receive federal
financial participation (FFP) for costs not otherwise
matchable, such as services delivered to targeted
populations, in limited geographic areas, or in settings
that are not otherwise covered under the Medicaid program.
On August 13, 2015, DHCS announced that CMS approved
California's Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System
(DMC-ODS) Waiver. Counties participating in the DMC-ODS
waiver program will administer, or arrange for, substance
use disorder treatment for Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The
DMC-ODS demonstration will be elective for five years.
The DMC-ODS provides a continuum of care modeled after the
American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) Criteria for
SUD treatment services. As part of their participation in
the DMC-ODS, CMS requires all residential providers to meet
the ASAM requirements and obtain a DHCS-issued ASAM
designation. The ASAM criteria is a nationally accepted set
of treatment criteria for SUD care and is being adopted
beyond Medi-Cal beneficiaries as the SUD industry standard.
As of March 14, DHCS has designated 168 residential alcohol
AB 2403
Page 12
and/or other drug treatment facilities with the appropriate
ASAM level of care. DHCS has initiated a phased-in
implementation of the DMC-ODS and established five regions
throughout the state. DHCS determined the order of
implementation based on location, population, and county
and provider readiness.
i) Phase One, Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma ;
ii) Phase Two, Kern and Southern California: Kern,
Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino,
San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura;
iii) Phase Three, Central and Northern California:
Calaveras, Eldorado, Fresno Inyo, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Mono, Placer, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Yolo, San Joaquin,
Sutter, Tuolumne, Yuba;
iv) Phase Four, Northern California: Butte, Colusa, Del
Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Lake, Lassen, Mendocino, Modoc,
Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, Trinity; and,
v) Phase Five: Tribal Partners
DHCS has developed a designation program to certify that
all providers are certified based on the level of care they
are capable of delivering consistent with ASAM Criteria. As
AB 2403
Page 13
part of this designation program, facilities must complete
the DHCS ASAM designation questionnaire and will be given a
provisional designation. The provisional status of the
DHCS ASAM designation will remain on the residential
treatment facility license until verification of the
designation(s) is completed during an on-site visit. Over
the next several months, DHCS will also be adding the ASAM
designation process to the initial licensing process;
eventually all residential providers will have an ASAM
designation.
1)SUPPORT. The League of Cities (League) states that with this
measure, cities and counties would be noticed of state license
applications, and the municipality could help recognize
overconcentration, which is defined as having two facilities
separated by less than 300 feet. The League states that in
establishing residential group home facilities, it was not
anticipated that existing laws would be manipulated for the
advantage of business owners to garner maximum profits.
Business owners have found loopholes within the existing laws
and have exploited them for personal gain. The single
rehabilitation facility nestled into the residential
neighborhood has been taken over by companies that have
created multi-structure, campus-style facilities within a
residentially zoned neighborhood. The overconcentrated campus
style facilities are more profitable than standalone
facilities and they can drastically change the character of a
neighborhood, causing it to become more similar to a hospital
zone or busy commercial center. Most importantly, the campus
style facilities eliminate a vital benefit to the patient,
which is to become part of the fabric of a community. The
League argues that this with this bill, cities and counties
would be noticed of state license applications, and the
municipality could help recognize overconcentration, which is
defined as having two facilities separated by less than 300
AB 2403
Page 14
feet. The League concludes that this measure would simply
provide consistency with all other state licensed group homes
to protect existing neighborhoods and protect the therapeutic,
nurturing environment that benefits all categories of
protected residence recovering in state-licensed group homes.
2)OPPOSITION. Promises Treatment Centers of California
(Promises) writes in opposition to the bill that the new
definition of an "integral facility" unravels long-standing
state law designed to promote effective treatment strategies
and removes anti-discrimination protections from integral
facilities. Regulations outline the process by which DHCS may
issue a single license to a residential treatment facility in
which multiple sites are "integral" components to a single
treatment operation. This treatment model has led to
significantly improved outcomes for patients. Promises argues
that allowing licensed programs in adjacent homes to share
resources such as therapists improves the financial viability
of both operations, improves the clinical experience by
allowing for more specialized treatments for clients and
ensures that programs will be available to those in need. The
population demands for drug and alcohol treatment cannot be
met by forcing providers to operate in an inefficient model
when there are no demonstrable benefits to the communities in
changing the current legislation.
Promises states that the civil rights implications of this
measure are very troubling. The ADA and federal Fair Housing
Act combine to protect people recovering from alcoholism or
other drug dependence from being discriminated against in
their access to housing. The federal Fair Housing Act
specifically prohibits housing discrimination against members
of various protected classes of people based on factors
including national origin, race, and disability status.
Unlike other state and federal laws which conform to the
provisions of these landmark civil rights protections, this
measure directly conflicts with them. Promises concludes that
if this measure were to become law, it would entitle local
governments to discriminate against a protected class of
AB 2403
Page 15
people by denying those people opportunities for housing in a
treatment program meeting the definition of an "integral
facility". The plain language in the existing statute forbids
local governments from treating "6 and under" facilities
differently than any other single-family residence.
3)RELATED LEGISLATION.
a) AB 1915 (Santiago) would establish the Residential
Treatment Facility Expansion Fund for the purpose of making
grants or loans to residential treatment centers that are
expanding services or to substance use disorder treatment
service facilities that are expanding to provide
residential treatment services. AB 1915 is pending in the
Assembly Health Committee.
b) AB 2255 (Melendez) would defines "drug and alcohol free
residences" and requires these residences to be certified
by a certifying organization approved by DHCS to register
drug and alcohol free residences. AB 2255 is pending in
the Assembly Health Committee.
c) SB 1101 (Wieckowski) would establish new licensing
requirements for alcohol and drug counselors and would
transfer responsibilities pertaining to alcohol and drug
counselor certification and the approval and regulation of
certifying organizations from DHCS to the Department of
Public Health. SB 1101 is pending in the Senate Health
Committee.
d) SB 1283 (Bates) would require DHCS to licensee and
regulate adult recovery maintenance facilities and would
establish licensure fees for that purpose. SB 1283 is
pending in the Senate Health Committee.
AB 2403
Page 16
4)PREVIOUS LEGISLATION.
a) AB 848 (Stone), Chapter 744, Statutes of 2015,
authorizes alcoholism and drug treatment facilities to
allow a licensed physician, or other health care
practitioner, to provide incidental medical services to a
resident of the facility and requires DHCS to conduct an
evaluation of the program on or before July 1, 2018.
b) AB 2491 (Nestande) of 2014 would have exempted sober
living homes from licensure as an adult alcoholism or drug
abuse recovery or treatment facility and required sober
living homes to meet specified requirements, including the
active participation of residents in legitimate recovery
programs and the maintenance of records of meeting
attendance. AB 2491 was held under submission in the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
c) AB 1983 (Mansoor) of 2012 would have defined integral
alcohol and drug abuse treatment facilities for purposes of
licensure by the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs
(DADP) and excluded integral facilities from being
considered a residential use of property. AB 1983 failed
passage in the Assembly Health Committee.
d) AB 1284 (Huffman) of 2009 would have required DADP to
notify the appropriate city or county planning agency of a
proposed facility's application for licensure as a
residential treatment facility if it operates as an
integral component of an existing licensed facility managed
AB 2403
Page 17
by the same licensee and is located within 300 feet of the
existing facility. AB 1284 died on the Assembly
Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
e) SB 268 (Harman) of 2009, which was substantially similar
to SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008, failed passage in the Assembly
Health Committee and was subsequently amended to a
different topic.
f) AB 2903 (Huffman) of 2008 would have authorized DADP to
require any person or entity applying for licensure to
provide specified information to DADP before a license is
issued. AB 2903 was held in the Senate Health Committee.
g) SB 1000 (Harman) of 2008 would have required applicants
seeking a treatment facility license from DADP to certify
that the facility is consistent with local zoning
ordinances and would have required DADP to verify the
certification. SB 1000 failed passage in the Senate Health
Committee.
h) SB 992 (Wiggins) of 2007 would have required the
Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs to license adult recovery maintenance facilities
and applied existing alcohol and drug abuse recovery or
treatment facilities licensure requirements to adult
recovery maintenance facilities. This bill was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger.
i) AB 724 (Benoit) of 2007 would have defined a sober
living home as a residential property that is operated as a
cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and
drug free environment for persons recovering from
alcoholism or drug abuse and meets other specified
AB 2403
Page 18
requirements. AB 724 failed passage in the Senate Health
Committee.
j) SB 530 (Dutton) of 2007 would have prohibited DADP from
licensing a treatment facility if another treatment
facility was located within 300 feet. SB 530 was held in
the Senate Health Committee.
aa) AB 370 (Adams) of 2007 would have permitted a local
government to include a residential care facility serving
six or fewer persons, including a sober living facility,
within the definition of single family residence. AB 370
died on the Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense
File.
bb) AB 3007 (Emmerson) of 2006 would have prohibited DADP
from licensing a treatment facility if another treatment
facility was located within 300 feet. AB 3007 died on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee Suspense File.
5)POLICY COMMENTS
a) Potential Discriminatory Policy. As noted above,
individuals recovering from alcohol or drug dependency
problems are deemed to be a protected class and have been
extended civil rights protections under the ADA, FEHA, and
other state anti-discriminatory laws. The recent Ninth
Circuit decision in Pacific Shores further strengthened the
protections available to this class of individuals by the
Court's nullification of a city ordinance that imposed
zoning requirements on these types of treatment facilities.
As such, the Committee may wish to consider deleting the
provisions of this bill expanding the authority of cities
and counties to impose further limitations of the
establishments of new treatment facilities.
AB 2403
Page 19
b) Certification requirements. As discussed above, DHCS is
in the middle of overhauling the licensing process for
residential treatment facilities with the implementation of
the DMC-ODS Waiver. This bill requires, at least 45 days
prior to approving any application for a new facility, DHCS
or a county licensing agency to notify the planning agency
of the city or of the county of the proposed location of
the facility. It is unclear what, if any, impact the
requirements of this bill would have on the current
overhaul of the licensing process. The Committee may wish
to consider deleting the changes in the DHCS licensing
process for treatment facilities from this bill.
c) Existing need for treatment options. The bill currently
states that it shall be presumed, based solely on treatment
location proximity, that local need for treatment
facilities is satisfied. However, this provision is
problematic. Whether or not a local need for treatment
facility is satisfied is more properly determined by the
number of potential beneficiaries in need of treatment.
Federal data on drug abuse patterns and trends, expanded
efforts in the ACA, and a state overhaul of how alcohol and
drug treatment services are administered are all indicators
that the state's need for treatment facilities has not been
met, and therefore local needs are most likely not met.
The Committee may wish to consider an amendment deleting
the provisions of this bill establishing overconcentration
requirements and prohibiting the establishment of new
treatment facilities solely based on location.
d) Grandfathering clause. Current DHCS licensing
provisions allow a license to be valid for two years once
the license is approved. The author wishes to amend this
bill to specify that current applications are valid, and
this bill applies to license applications submitted after
January 1, 2017.
AB 2403
Page 20
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
City of Lakewood
City of Malibu
City of Norwalk
City of Pico Rivera
League of California Cities
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
Multiple individuals
Opposition
Cliffside Malibu
AB 2403
Page 21
County Behavioral Health Directors Association
Promises Treatment Centers of California
Analysis Prepared by:Paula Villescaz / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097