BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 145| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 145 Author: Pan (D) Amended: 5/5/15 Vote: 21 SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 5-2, 4/22/15 AYES: Hernandez, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Roth NOES: Nguyen, Nielsen NO VOTE RECORDED: Hall, Wolk SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/28/15 AYES: Jackson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning NOES: Anderson NO VOTE RECORDED: Moorlach, Wieckowski SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 SUBJECT: Health facilities: patient transportingHealth facilities: patient transporting. SOURCE: Author DIGEST: This bill prohibits hospitals from causing a patient who, in the judgment of the attending physician, is at risk of serious injury or death as a result of clinical alcohol intoxication, to be transported to another location, except when the patient is medically stabilized or transferred to another licensed health facility. ANALYSIS: SB 145 Page 2 Existing law: 1)Requires, under both the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) and also under state law, that anyone who comes into a hospital emergency room to be provided with a medical screening examination, regardless of the patient's ability to pay, to determine if the patient is suffering from an emergency medical condition, and if so, requires the patient to be treated until the patient is medically stabilized. 2)Defines "emergency medical condition" as a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the patient's health in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. 3)Defines "stabilization" as when, in the opinion of the treating physician, the patient's medical condition is such that, within reasonable medical probability, no material deterioration of the patient's condition is likely to result from, or occur during, the release or transfer of the patient. 4)Provides for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for hospitals found by the Department of Public Health (DPH) to have violated the state law version of EMTALA, and penalties of up to $5,000 for physicians whom the Medical Board of California found violated these provisions of law. Additionally, permits a person who suffers personal harm as a result of a violation of these provisions of law to recover damages and other appropriate relief in a civil action (known as a private right of action). 5)Establishes a structure under which DPH is permitted to assess administrative fines to general acute care hospitals, acute psychiatric hospitals, and special hospitals for violation of any of their licensing laws and regulations. Requires DPH to promulgate regulations establishing the criteria to assess these administrative penalties, and requires these criteria to include, but not be limited to, the following: SB 145 Page 3 a) The patient's physical and mental condition; b) The probability and severity of the risk that the violation presents to the patient; c) The actual financial harm to patients, if any; d) The nature, scope, and severity of the violation; e) The facility's history of compliance with related state and federal statutes and regulations; f) Factors beyond the facility's control that restrict the facility's ability to comply with state law; g) The demonstrated willfulness of the violation; and h) The extent to which the facility detected the violation and took steps to immediately correct the violation and prevent the violation from recurring. 6)Permits DPH to assess an administrative penalty against a general acute care hospital, acute psychiatric hospital, and special hospital, for a deficiency constituting an immediate jeopardy violation, as defined, up to a maximum of $75,000 for the first administrative penalty, up to $100,000 for the second administrative penalty, and up to $125,000 for the third and every subsequent administrative penalty. Defines "immediate jeopardy" as a situation in which the licensee's noncompliance with one or more requirements of licensure has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury or death to the patient. 7)Permits DPH to assess an administrative penalty of up to $25,000 per violation for those not deemed to constitute immediate jeopardy. This bill: 1)Prohibits a general acute care hospital, acute psychiatric hospital, or special hospital from causing a patient who, in the judgment of the attending physician or other licensed health care professional, is at risk of serious injury or death as a result of clinical alcohol intoxication, to be SB 145 Page 4 transported to another location, including, but not limited to, policy custody, a correctional facility, or a county jail, except when the patient is medical stabilized, as defined, or appropriately transferred to another licensed health facility pursuant to another law. 2)Permits DPH, if it determines that a hospital has violated the provisions of this bill, to determine that the violation is an immediate jeopardy violation, as specified, and to assess penalties accordingly. 3)Prohibits anything in this bill from being construed to contradict any other law related to workplace violence prevention, including, but not limited to, workplace violence standards adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board. Comments 1)Author's statement. According to the author, "SB 145 stops a practice that poses a risk to patient safety, prevents the cost and liabilities of treating hospital's emergency patients from being wrongly shifted to the police and correction facilities and preserves 911 calls for true emergencies. Some of the hospitals in California routinely call 911 and have patients with potentially lethal levels of alcohol in their systems taken to jail. It goes against everything we stand for in healthcare and it has to stop. Substantial evidence reveals that Prime Healthcare (Prime) services are transferring patients, admitted to the Emergency Room (ER) for acute alcohol poisoning, to police departments, corrections facilities, and county jails by calling 911. Despite being one of the largest hospital chains in the state, Prime has an unusually high number of cases where the police are called on patients in the ER. Prime calls the police on patients with acute alcohol poisoning and requests the patients be arrested and transferred to a jail before the patient has been treated and stabilized. Acute alcohol poisoning is a medical emergency." 2)History of the problem. According to information provided by the author and the Service Employees International Union - United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW), a co-sponsor of this bill, for the first three months of 2014, 124 emergency SB 145 Page 5 calls came from Shasta Regional Medical Center, a Prime Healthcare hospital in Redding, California, which averages to about 41 such calls per month. In comparison, a hospital operated by Dignity Health about two miles away from Shasta Regional Medical Center only made 53 emergency calls in the first nine months of 2014, or about six per month. SEIU-UHW also cited some Shasta emergency call summaries that described requests for patients to be picked up with very high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels. According to SEIU-UHW, the following call summaries are examples where the patient was booked after the emergency call was made and the officer responded (each of these incidents were from February and March of 2010): "Subject has BAC of .48 and needs to be picked up." "Intoxicated subject cleared for release. Still has BAC of .44" "Patient medically cleared with .40 BAC" 1)EMTALA. Sometimes referred to as the "Patient Anti-Dumping Law," EMTALA was passed to address the problem of hospitals refusing to treat indigent, uninsured, or Medicaid patients, or "dumping" these patients by transferring them to county hospitals or other charity hospitals. According to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, in 1986, Congress enacted EMTALA to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition, including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with an emergency medical condition. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented. As an enforcement mechanism, EMTALA also established a private right of action. 2)Effects of BAC. A chart from Stanford University's Office of Alcohol Policy and Education, which describes the physical and mental effects of various BAC levels, is typical of many such SB 145 Page 6 charts. At a BAC of .07 to .09, this chart states that the effect is mild impairment of balance, speech, vision and control, and that in California, you will test as legally impaired to drive. At a BAC of .16 to .20, dysphoria predominates, nausea may appear, and the drinker has the appearance of a "sloppy drunk." At .25 to .30, the person is severely intoxicated, needs assistance walking, has mental confusion, and there is vomiting. At .35 to .40, loss of consciousness and brink of coma, and at .40 and up, onset of coma with likelihood of death due to respiratory failure. Another chart, describing wider ranges, broke BAC levels into categories such as .18 to .30 being the "confusion" stage, with various symptoms; .25 to .40 the "stupor" stage; .35 to .50 the "coma" stage (which includes possible death as a symptom); and .45 and above "death from respiratory arrest." In a study published in EMS World in March of 2014 entitled "Acute Alcohol Poisoning," the authors included a similar chart, which listed "coma in the non-habituated drinker" at a BAC of .25-.30. However, this study stated that "it should be noted there is a poor correlation between BAC and clinical exam findings in patients with alcohol habituation." According to the study, "respiratory depression and subsequent death may occur in the non-habituated patient at concentrations of 0.4-0.5, but it is not uncommon for a chronic alcoholic to appear minimally intoxicated with a BAC as high as 0.4." The study also noted that another factor that affects a patient's clinical exam is whether the patient's BAC is increasing or decreasing. According to this study, it is a known phenomenon, termed the Mellanby effect, that the clinical manifestations of alcohol intoxication are more prominent when BAC is rising. Prior Legislation SB 275 (Cedillo, 2007) would have prohibited a hospital from causing a patient to be transported to a location other than the patient's residence or another health facility without the patient's written consent, and established penalties and an enforcement process that is very similar to this bill, including civil penalties of $150,000 for a second violation, and $300,000 for subsequent violations. SB 275 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, who stated in his veto message that while he was strongly opposed to patient dumping, hospitals must already meet specific discharge planning requirements and make appropriate SB 145 Page 7 arrangements for post-hospital care. Enforcement of existing laws is critical, however, additional penalties are premature. SB 1312 (Alquist, Chapter 895, Statutes of 2006), among other provisions, authorized DPH to assess administrative penalties on hospitals based on deficiencies constituting immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of a patient. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: Yes SUPPORT: (Verified5/19/15) SEIU-UHW (co-source) United Nurses Associations of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (co-source) American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO California Medical Association SEIU California OPPOSITION: (Verified5/19/15) California Hospital Association California Nurses Association ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: This bill is co-sponsored by SEIU-UHW, and by the United Nurses Association of California/Union of Health Care Professionals (UNAC/UHCP). According to SEIU-UHW, there is substantial evidence that Prime Healthcare Services is inappropriately and dangerously transferring patients admitted to the ER for acute alcohol poisoning to police departments, corrections facilities, and county jails by calling 911. SEIU-UHW states that this is immoral, poses a risk to patient safety, and is an abuse of the 911 system, which should of course be reserved purely for true emergencies. According to SEIU-UHW, in a number of cases, the reporting party at Shasta Regional Medical Center reported BAC levels associated with death and comas but still requested an arrest be made on the SB 145 Page 8 patient. SEIU-UHW states that discharging patients with BACs higher than 0.3% and transferring them to jail in a police car is dangerous, and that in the case of patients who require emergency services because of very high BAC levels, the hospital must stabilize the patient before attempting to make any transfer. UNAC/UHCP states in support that regularly calling the police on intoxicated patients is a basic part of the Prime Healthcare business model and helps reduce their costs by forcing these patients into the care and custody of corrections officials, which in turn puts unnecessary burdens on an already strained criminal justice system. SEIU California states that discharging a patient with a BAC of .08 into the custody of the jail, corrections, or police should only occur if there is a compelling public safety reason, such as in cases where other patients and hospital staff are at risk. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees states in support that it is common sense for a hospital to treat a patient and ensure that they are stabilized before transferring them, and that this bill works to protect patients from corporate interests that would otherwise prioritize saving a dollar to saving a life. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:The California Nurses Association (CNA) states in opposition that this bill is a solution in search of a problem, and that the discharge or transfer of an unstable patient is already illegal in California. According to CNA, this bill, if passed, might lead to the unintended consequence of creating more risk of harm to healthcare workers by causing hospitals to hesitate to call law enforcement for assistance despite the presence of a violent individual who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The California Hospital Association (CHA) states in opposition that this bill will impede the clinical judgment of physicians, nurses and other clinical staff in California's emergency departments. According to CHA, a physician must determine medical stability, and that this bill would compromise the important physician/patient relationship which is the foundation for all medical care and may not be in the best interest of every patient. Prepared by:Vince Marchand / HEALTH / 5/20/15 11:58:23 SB 145 Page 9 **** END ****