BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                    AB 2750


                                                                    Page  1





          Date of Hearing:  May 4, 2016


                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS


                               Lorena Gonzalez, Chair


          AB  
          2750 (Gomez) - As Amended April 7, 2016


           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Policy       |Rules                          |Vote:|11 - 0       |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |Health                         |     |16 - 0       |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  NoReimbursable:  No


          SUMMARY:



          This bill exempts specified health care providers storing human  
          cell, tissue, or cellular- or tissue-based product (tissue) that  
          is regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  








                                                                    AB 2750


                                                                    Page  2





          from state licensure as a tissue bank if all of the following  
          apply:

          a)The tissue has been obtained from a licensed tissue bank.
          b)The tissue is stored in accordance with specified guidelines.
          c)The tissue is used for the express purpose of implantation  
            into or application on a patient, and is not intended for  
            further distribution.
          


          FISCAL EFFECT:



          A potential decrease of about 40% in workload, and a  
          commensurate $260,000 reduction in annual fee revenue to the  
          California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Tissue Bank  
          licensing program.  Remaining fee revenues and the fund balance  
          in the Tissue Bank Licensing Fund appear to be adequate to  
          support remaining workload.  A tissue bank license fee costs  
          $975 annually.
          


          COMMENTS:





          1)Purpose. According to the author, due to the burdens of  
            licensure, many hospitals and ambulatory surgical centers  
            located in California opt not to obtain a tissue bank license  
            from the state, and instead make daily deliveries of the  
            specified tissue grafts at the beginning of the calendar day,  
            using couriers to return any unused tissue grafts at the end  
            of the day.  The author states this is inefficient and costly.  
             This bill is sponsored by the MiMedx, a private company that  








                                                                    AB 2750


                                                                    Page  3





            processes, markets, and distributes human amniotic tissue. The  
            sponsor believes it is unnecessary for providers to be  
            licensed as tissue banks with the state when they are only  
            storing tissue for use in their own patients in accordance  
            with FDA regulations and oversight.  

          2)Background. A tissue bank is defined as an establishment that  
            collects, processes, stores, or distributes tissue (cells,  
            groups of cells, segments of eyes and other body parts, sperm,  
            blood, and other fluids) for transplantation into humans.   
            Current law requires CDPH to adopt regulations on or before  
            January 1, 2004, governing tissue banks, and requires the  
            regulations to be based on criteria used by tissue bank trade  
            associations in their accreditation processes.   Finally, it  
            requires every tissue bank to have a valid license.  CDPH has  
            not issued regulations as required by existing law.  CDPH  
            maintains that any facility collecting, processing, storing,  
            or distributing human tissue for purposes of transplantation  
            needs to be licensed as a tissue bank, as specified in the  
            law.  Eight exemptions have been added over the years; this  
            bill would add a ninth exemption. 
          3)Related Legislation. AB 1822 (Bonta) of 2014 was substantially  
            similar to this bill.  AB 1822 was vetoed by the Governor who  
            stated, in part, "While I support eliminating overly  
            burdensome regulation, I'm not convinced that the bill strikes  
            the right balance between safety and economy.  I will direct  
            the Department of Public Health to continue working with  
            interested parties to develop an approach that balances  
            appropriate oversight with cost savings for suppliers."  CDPH  
            has developed an Frequently Asked Questions document to  
            clarify the application of current law, but it has not  
            addressed the problem that this bill seeks to address.  


            This bill does not address the veto message, as it is  
            substantially similar to AB 1822, but neither has CDPH  
            developed a different approach that balances oversight and  
            cost savings, as indicated in the veto message. 









                                                                    AB 2750


                                                                    Page  4






          Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)  
          319-2081