BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2640


                                                                    Page  1





          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING


          AB  
          2640 (Gipson)


          As Amended  April 21, 2016


          Majority vote


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Health          |12-5 |Wood, Bonilla, Burke, |Maienschein,        |
          |                |     |Campos, Chiu,         |Lackey, Olsen,      |
          |                |     |Dababneh, Gomez,      |Patterson,          |
          |                |     |                      |Steinorth           |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |Roger Hernández,      |                    |
          |                |     |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 2640


                                                                    Page  2





           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Requires a medical care provider or person  
          administering a test for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) to  
          provide patients who test negative for HIV infection, yet are at  
          high risk for HIV infection, with written information about the  
          effectiveness and safety of all methods that prevent or reduce  
          the risk of contracting HIV, including, but not limited to,  
          pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis  
          (PEP), consistent with guidance of the federal Centers for  
          Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, to the extent this bill raises awareness of drug  
          therapy for people at high risk for HIV, this bill could  
          potentially increase demand for and utilization of drug  
          treatment for HIV prevention, particularly PrEP.  According to  
          the New York State Department of Health, Truvada, the drug used  
          in PrEP therapy, costs between $8,000 and $14,000 per year.   
          Medi-Cal prices for the drug are unknown, but even assuming  
          significant discounts are available, costs to Medi-Cal could be  
          in the millions annually if even a few hundreds more people a  
          year take the medication (General Fund/federal).  To the extent  
          increased utilization with PrEP among high-risk populations  
          reduces the number of HIV infections, there would be offsetting  
          cost savings for less HIV/AIDS treatment in Medi-Cal and the  
          AIDS Drug Assistance Program.  


          Costs to the California Department of Public Health to produce  
          updated written material, and to modify HIV counselor training,  
          are minor and absorbable.


          COMMENTS:  According to the author, this bill seeks to reduce  
          the spread of HIV and save the lives of individuals at high risk  
          of HIV exposure by providing them with information about  








                                                                    AB 2640


                                                                    Page  3





          preventive medications during HIV post-test counseling.  The  
          author notes that in 2013, California was second among the 50  
          states in the number of new HIV diagnoses, with approximately  
          5,000 new HIV diagnoses, and a 2015 survey of individuals at  
          risk for HIV by the California HIV/AIDS Research Program found  
          that only one in 10 respondents had ever used PrEP.  The author  
          concludes, considering the high volume of new HIV infections  
          being diagnosed in the state of California and the low awareness  
          of these medications, it is critical that those being tested are  
          aware of PEP and PrEP medications.


          Treatment as Prevention (TasP), PrEP, and PEP.  In TasP, people  
          living with HIV/AIDS use anti-retroviral (ARV) medications to  
          reduce their viral load (the amount of HIV in the body) to  
          undetectable levels.  With an undetectable viral load, the  
          amount of HIV in the body is so small it greatly reduces the  
          likelihood of passing the virus to another person.  Strict  
          adherence to TasP reduces the likelihood of transmission by up  
          to 96%.  PrEP is a new intervention that uses an established ARV  
          medication, Truvada to protect at-risk HIV-negative individuals  
          from HIV infection.  PrEP is different from PEP; the medication  
          is taken before, not after possible exposure.  Daily PrEP use  
          can lower the risk of getting HIV from sex by more than 90% and  
          from injection drug use by more than 70%.  Missing doses reduces  
          PrEP effectiveness.  Truvada is currently the only FDA drug  
          approved for HIV PrEP.  PEP uses ARV medications to prevent HIV  
          from replicating and spreading through the body after an  
          exposure to the virus.  PEP is a short-term (28-day)  
          intervention and must be started within three days of an  
          exposure - sooner, if possible - to be effective.  PEP was  
          originally developed for occupational exposures, such as  
          needle-sticks in hospitals, but is also effective for sexual  
          exposures.  


          In 2015, the CDC estimated that one in four sexually active gay  
          and bisexual men, one in five people who inject drugs, and one  
          in 200 sexually active heterosexual adults meet the criteria for  








                                                                    AB 2640


                                                                    Page  4





          PrEP.  In 2015, the California HIV/AIDS Research Program  
          conducted a survey of 602 young gay and bisexual men and found  
          that only one in 10 had ever taken PrEP.  Although awareness of  
          the intervention was high among those who had never taken PrEP,  
          awareness was significantly lower among Black and Latino  
          respondents compared to white respondents.  In addition, the  
          large majority of respondents indicated they had never talked to  
          their doctor or healthcare provider about PrEP.  


          In its November 24, 2015 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,  
          the CDC estimated that 1.2 million Americans could benefit from  
          PrEP, including 492,000 men who have sex with men, 115,000  
          injection drug users, and 624,000 heterosexuals.  The report  
          concludes that clinical organizations, health departments, and  
          community-based organizations should raise awareness of PrEP  
          among persons with substantial risk for acquiring HIV infection  
          and their health care providers.


          AIDS Project Los Angeles and the Los Angeles LGBT Center are the  
          cosponsors of this bill and they state that awareness and use of  
          PrEP and PEP among Californians at risk for HIV remain extremely  
          low.  They conclude it remains vital to ensure that all  
          individuals at risk for HIV receive accurate information about  
          PrEP and PEP, particularly highly-impacted communities of color.  
            


          The AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) states in opposition that  
          HIV screening is intended to mirror other screening tests, which  
          require simple consent only and which do not burden the process  
          with additional activities that may or may not be necessary.   
          AHF asserts that its experience as the largest private tester in  
          the state is that the more time and demands placed on the person  
          it is encouraging to be tested, the more likely the person is to  
          decline.  The California Medical Association (CMA) is opposed to  
          this bill stating, increased awareness of preventative treatment  
          options for HIV should be a public health goal, however, it is  








                                                                    AB 2640


                                                                    Page  5





          concerned that the increased medical resources required to  
          accomplish the goal of this bill are not worth the benefit of  
          the mandate.  CMA notes that many preventative treatment options  
          are not appropriate for every patient, and this bill would  
          require a physician to inform the patient of a treatment option  
          the physician might actually recommend against.  




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097  FN:  
          0003267