BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 2424 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 2424 (Gomez) As Amended May 31, 2016 Majority vote ------------------------------------------------------------------ |Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Health |14-2 |Wood, Maienschein, |Olsen, Patterson | | | |Bonilla, Burke, | | | | |Campos, Chiu, | | | | |Dababneh, Gomez, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |Roger Hernández, | | | | |Lackey, Nazarian, | | | | |Rodriguez, Santiago, | | | | |Waldron | | | | | | | |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------| |Appropriations |14-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, | | | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, | | | |Calderon, Daly, |Obernolte, Wagner | | | |Eggman, Eduardo | | | | |Garcia, Roger | | | | |Hernández, Holden, | | | | |Quirk, Santiago, | | | | |Weber, Wood | | AB 2424 Page 2 | | | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------ SUMMARY: Creates a Community-based Health Improvement and Innovation (CHII) Fund for certain purposes, including funding for health inequity and disparities in the rates and outcomes of priority chronic health conditions. Specifies funds are available to reduce health inequity; prevent the onset of priority chronic health conditions, as defined; strengthen local and regional collaborations; and evaluate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of community-based prevention strategies for priority chronic health conditions. Specifies funds can be used for activities as described. Specifies policy, systems, and environmental change approaches. Specifies a target level of annual statewide investment from the fund that must be established as a set dollar amount per capita, and allocates funds to the California Department of Public Health (DPH). Specifies funds shall supplement and not supplant existing funding for community-based prevention activities of priority chronic health conditions, and that participating hospitals and health plan partners must identify monetary or in-kind contributions to local projects. Creates an advisory committee to offer expert input and guidance to DPH on the development, implementation, and evaluation of the fund. Requires implementation contingent on a budget appropriation. FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee: 1)DPH would incur one-time costs for staffing, information technology, and contracts, likely in the low millions of dollars. Ongoing costs would depend on the total allocation and the number of grants and contracts to be managed. AB 2424 Page 3 2)This bill does not specify a funding source or amount, but it is safe to assume a program of the scale envisioned would cost in the tens of millions of dollars General Fund (GF) per three-year cycle, in absence of another fund source. Based on the minimum $250,000 allocated to each local health jurisdiction, which would make up 50% of the funding, as well as the ambitious nature and comprehensiveness of the program, staff estimates cost pressure of $30.5 million GF at a minimum. Assuming a program of this size, $2.8 million would be allocated to communications and media, $1.5 million to evaluation, up to $1.8 million for DPH administration and oversight, $15.3 to local health jurisdictions to implement community-based health improvement activities, and $9.1 million for competitive grants. 3)A related stakeholder proposal request for a $380 million GF appropriation for a CHII Fund was discussed in the Assembly Budget Subcommittee 1 on April 11, 2016. This represents nearly a $10 per capita investment, which would support one cycle of a three-year grant program. 4)Research indicates funding evidence-based, community-based chronic disease prevention activities can have a high return on investment in terms of health care cost savings. A return on investment (ROI) analysis is beyond the scope of this estimate, but as this bill focuses on the most costly and preventable conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, and assuming the activities were evidence-based and well-implemented, it is reasonable they could lead to improvements in population health and a corresponding a reduction in health care cost growth statewide, and for the state as a large payer. In addition, the bill's focus on health equity priority populations is likely to have a significant overlap with the Medi-Cal population, increasing the chances of a positive ROI for the state. Finally, the bill's emphasis on funding systems and policy changes means health-promoting changes adopted pursuant to this program may AB 2424 Page 4 have a lasting impact. For example, the tobacco control program led to changes in public acceptance of tobacco use, which in turn resulted in policies that are unlikely to be reversed, such as tobacco-free workplaces. COMMENTS: The author states that with this bill and with proper management, innovative investment strategies, and equitable distribution and implementation plans, the CHII Fund would help the state achieve greater health equity and advance the "Triple Aim" of health improvement: 1) better care; 2) better health; and, 3) lower costs. According to the author, a $10 per capita investment over three years (for prevention of disease which accounts for 80% of health care costs) is actually fairly modest for a statewide program with these goals. For comparison, Massachusetts has invested a $60 million one-time in a similar fund, which is similar in scale based on their population. The state spends over $450 per capita from the General Fund just on Medi-Cal every year - and much more when accounting for California Public Employees' Retirement System employees and retirees, as well as correctional health. According to the author, DPH received a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for $3.8 million to promote healthy behaviors and reduce diabetes. As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the Prevention and Public Health Investment Fund (Prevention Fund) was created to provide communities around the country with more than $15 billion over the next 10 years to invest in effective, proven prevention efforts, like childhood obesity and tobacco cessation. The Prevention Fund, in recent years, has suffered legislative reduction and elimination of major programs. In 2012, the Assembly and Senate Committees on Health conducted a joint hearing with the goal of highlighting the health benefits and cost savings associated with investing in AB 2424 Page 5 community-wide health promotion and disease prevention. The hearing also highlighted prevention activities currently underway at the time across the state to implement successful strategies aimed at reducing health care costs and promoting health and wellness. In 2014, the Assembly Committee on Health held an Information Hearing, entitled Supporting Public Health in California: The Critical Role of the State and Local Departments in Disease Surveillance and Control. The background included some information of the following: 1)Department of Public Health. The mission of DPH is to optimize the health and well-being of Californians, primarily through population-based programs, strategies, and initiatives. DPH is broadly organized into the Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, the Center for Environmental Health, the Center for Family Health, the Center for Health Care Quality, and the Center for Infectious Diseases. California created the Health in All Policies Task Force in 2010. The Task Force was charged with identifying priority programs, policies, and strategies to improve the health of Californians. 2)Local Health Departments. There are 61 local health jurisdictions in California representing the 58 counties and three cities: Berkeley, Long Beach, and Pasadena. Public health officers have broad far-reaching authority and responsibility under the law. For example, public health officers have the authority to order testing for individuals or communities, quarantine individuals or groups, and close beaches, restaurants, and other facilities for public safety. Public health officers receive reports from health providers and laboratories concerning the incidence of more than 80 statutorily reportable diseases including HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, and syphilis. County health departments must AB 2424 Page 6 submit monthly, quarterly, or annual public health and program reports to state agencies including DPH and the Emergency Medical Services Authority. County public health programs vary substantially in their administrative structures, scope, funding levels, staffing, and specific services and programs offered. 3)Public Health Spending in California. The Governor's fiscal year (FY) 2014-15 Budget provides $3 billion for the support of DPH programs and services, a decrease of 11.4% from the previous year. Of the amount approved, 23% ($683.3 million) is for state operations and 77% ($2.3 billion) is for local assistance. 4)Health Equity. According to the CDC, health equity is achieved when every person has the opportunity to "attain his or her full health potential" and no one is "disadvantaged from achieving this potential because of social position or other socially determined circumstances." Health inequities are reflected in differences in length of life; quality of life; rates of disease, disability, and death; severity of disease; and, access to treatment. Established in 2012, DPH's Office of Health Equity (OHE) aims to reduce health and mental health disparities in vulnerable communities. The OHE is required to consult with community-based organizations and local governmental agencies to ensure that community perspectives and input are included in policies, strategic plans, recommendations, and implementation activities 5)Targeted federally funded programs. The largest prevention program DPH administers is the Nutrition Education and Obesity Prevention program, which provides health education interventions to recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. In federal FY 2014, the CDC provided about $303 million to entities in California, including health departments, universities, and other public AB 2424 Page 7 and private agencies. Of this total, about $62 million of this funding statewide was allocated to different entities for chronic disease and prevention activities. Analysis Prepared by: Kristene Mapile/ HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003240