BILL ANALYSIS Ó ----------------------------------------------------------------- |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1095| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- THIRD READING Bill No: SB 1095 Author: Pan (D), et al. Amended: 5/31/16 Vote: 21 SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 9-0, 4/13/16 AYES: Hernandez, Nguyen, Hall, Mitchell, Monning, Nielsen, Pan, Roth, Wolk SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 5/27/16 AYES: Lara, Bates, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza, Nielsen SUBJECT: Newborn screening program SOURCE: EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of Public Health to expand statewide screening of newborns to include screening for any disease, as specified, as soon as the disease is adopted by the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel. ANALYSIS: Existing law: 1)Requires the Department of Public Health (DPH) to establish a genetic disease unit to coordinate all DPH programs in the area of genetic disease that will promote a statewide program of information, testing, and counseling services and to have the responsibility of designating tests and regulations to be used in executing this program and to have the responsibility of designating tests and regulations to be used in executing the California Newborn Screening Program (CNSP). SB 1095 Page 2 2)Requires DPH to charge a fee for newborn screening and follow-up services, and requires the amount of the fee to be periodically adjusted in order to meet the costs of the CNSP. 3)Requires DPH to expand statewide screening of newborns to include screening for adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD) as soon as ALD is adopted by the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP). This bill requires DPH to expand statewide screening of newborns to include screening for any disease that is detectable in blood samples as soon as the disease is adopted by the RUSP. Comments 1)Author's statement. According to the author, newborn screening for rare diseases is a critical, cost-effective public health intervention, as diagnosing diseases at birth leads to earlier medical intervention. In turn, early treatment saves and improves children's and families' lives and reduces medical costs by eliminating or ameliorating the devastating consequences of rare and treatable diseases. California's current approach to reviewing and approving screening for additional diseases has created a lag behind current medical recommendations. A study in the journal Pediatrics found that California saves $9.32 in health care costs for every dollar spent on newborn screening. 2)Background. According to DPH, California, like most states, follows recommendations from the federal Health and Human Services' (HHS) Discretionary Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (DACHDNC) and waits for the final approval from the HHS Secretary before requiring a new screening. Because disorders are not officially part of the RUSP until they are approved by the HHS Secretary, states do not generally implement screenings before the final approval. DPH's Director has the authority to add new disorders administratively, such as in cases where there is a grave public health need and the DACHDNC is not moving swiftly enough to review and add the disorder to the RUSP. However, according to DPH, since the creation of the RUSP and the DACHDNC, this has never been the case. DPH also states that SB 1095 Page 3 since the creation of the RUSP, DPH relies on the comprehensive expert investigations and recommendations the DACHDNC makes to the HHS Secretary and the vetting process of the RUSP to make additions to the state's newborn screening panel. DPH is currently in the process of procuring equipment and personnel to screen for ALD per AB 1559 (Pan, Chapter 565, Statutes of 2014), which the HHS Secretary added to the RUSP on February 16, 2016. According to its Charter, the purpose of the DACHDNC is to advise the HHS Secretary about aspects of newborn and childhood screening and technical information, which includes development of policies and priorities. The DACHDNC is responsible for developing a model decision-matrix for newborn screening expansion to evaluate the potential public health impact of such expansion, including the cost of such expansion; periodically updating the RUSP, as appropriate, based on the decision-matrix; and considering ways to ensure that all states attain the capacity to screen for the conditions, including the results of grant funding. The DACHDNC is also responsible for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating newborn screening activities that include diagnosis, screening, follow-up, treatment activities, and technology used for screening. 3)CNSP. Since its creation in 1966, the CNSP has been expanded several times as new discoveries are made and tests developed, and now screens for more than 70 disorders. Diseases have been continually added through regulation and legislation. According to DPH's Web site, newborn screening is recognized nationally as an essential preventive health measure. All states in the nation and the District of Columbia have established newborn screening programs. Disorders screened for by the program have varying degrees of severity. If identified early, many conditions can be treated before they cause serious health problems. Prior to leaving the hospital, a few drops of blood from the newborn's heel are collected on filter paper. Parents can get the test results from the baby's doctor or clinic, which take about two weeks. If the baby needs more tests, parents will get a letter or a phone call a few days after discharge from the hospital. Positive test results are immediately telephoned to a follow-up coordinator at one of SB 1095 Page 4 the Newborn Screening Area Service Centers throughout the state. The coordinator contacts the newborn's physician to arrange for repeat testing. If repeat testing determines that the baby has a disorder, the coordinator will supply the latest clinical information on diagnosis and treatment and assist with referrals to special care clinics. Currently, the cost of the test is $111.70. Medi-Cal, health plans, and most private insurance will pay for the test. FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.:YesLocal: No According to the Senate Appropriations Committee: 1)One-time costs of $2.4 million and ongoing costs of $4.3 million per year to screen for two diseases (MPS-1 and Pompe disease) that have already been approved for inclusion in the RUSP (Genetic Disease Testing Fund). The ongoing costs above would cover initial screening tests, follow up tests for positive results, and initial case management for confirmed diagnoses. Adding these two conditions would require an increase in the existing $113 fee charged for screening by about $9. Most health insurance, including Medi-Cal, cover the costs of the screening fee. 2)Ongoing costs of about $2.5 million per year for coverage of the increased screening fee by the Medi-Cal program (General Fund and federal funds). Medi-Cal covers the cost of the screening exam, and Medi-Cal pays for about 50% of the births in the state. 3)Unknown future costs to include additional diseases in the state's newborn screening program as they are added to the RUSP (Genetic Disease Testing Fund). The costs to include additional diseases will vary depending on the specific costs for testing of that disease. In recent years, anticipated costs to include additional diseases in the state's newborn screening program have generally been in the low millions per condition, per year. SB 1095 Page 5 4)Likely long-term savings due to improved clinical outcomes from early testing and treatment (various funds). When considering whether to include additional diseases in the RUSP, the federal advisory committee considers issues such as the reliability of the screening test, the availability of treatments, the benefits of early diagnosis, and the anticipated impact on health outcomes from additional screening. Specific information about the long-term impacts on health outcomes or avoided health care costs are often not available because the diseases that are considered for inclusion are rare, and treatments are evolving rapidly. However, new diseases are added when the advisory panel finds that there are benefits from screening, primarily the ability to avoid long-term health consequences with early intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that including additional diseases that have been approved by the federal government will reduce state health care spending in the long run. SUPPORT: (Verified5/31/16) EveryLife Foundation for Rare Diseases (source) Acid Maltase Deficiency Association Aidan Jack Seeger Foundation ALD Connect, Inc. American Academy of Pediatrics American Behcet's Disease Association American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO Amour Fund - Alpha Epsilon Omega Foundation Angels for Life Foundation Batten Disease Support & Research Association Brian's Hope Bridge the Gap - SYNGAP Education and Research Foundation California Academy of Physicians Assistants California Primary Care Association Children's PKU Network Chronic Granulomatous Disease Association Coalition Duchenne SB 1095 Page 6 County Health Executives Association of California Cure Sanfilippo Foundation DiMedio Foundation for Children Drew'sHope Research Foundation Engage Health, Inc. Fabry Support & Information Group Friedreich's Ataxia Research Alliance Gene Giraffe Project Gene Spotlight, Inc. Global Genes Grace Science Foundation Hannah's Hope Fund Hope4Bridget Hunter Syndrome Foundation Immune Deficiency Foundation International Pemphigus & Pemphigoid Foundation International Society for Mannosidosis and Related Diseases International Waldenstrom's Macroglobulinemia Foundation Jeffrey Modell Foundation Jett Foundation Jonah's Just Begun Foundation to Cure Sanfillipio LAL Solace, Inc. Leukemia Lymphoma Society Little Miss Hannah Foundation Lung Transplant Foundation Lupus and Allied Diseases Association Lymphatic Malformation Institute Lysosomal Disease Network March of Dimes MPS 6CESS Foundation National Leiomyosarcoma Foundation National Lymphedema Network National PKU Alliance National Tay-Sachs & Allied Diseases Association Nicholas Conor Institute Noah's Hope NTM Info & Research, Inc. Olivia's Heart Project Organic Acidemia Association Oxalosis and Hyperoxaluria Foundation Parent Project Muscular Dystrophy Pediatric Hydrocephalus Foundation SB 1095 Page 7 Phoenix Fox Foundation Pulmonary Fibrosis Advocates Rare & Undiagnosed Network Rare Disease United Foundation Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy Syndrome Association Sanfilippo Foundation for Children Save Babies Through Screening Foundation Saving Case & Friends, a Hunter Syndrome research & advocacy foundation Stop ALD Foundation Taylor's Tale Team Niemann-Pick Type C The Mastocystosis Society The MLD Foundation The Myelin Project The National MPS Society The Orphan Disease Pathway Project The OsteoPETrosis Society The RASopathies Network The Ryan Foundation The XLH Network, Inc. United Leukodystrophy Foundation Vanishing White Matter Disease Wired4Life Zeqing for a Cure OPPOSITION: (Verified5/31/16) California Right to Life, Inc. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters of this bill, largely patient organizations and health providers, argue that millions of babies born in the U.S. are screened for a variety of diseases and conditions that might otherwise go undetected and, if left untreated, can cause disabilities, developmental delays, illnesses, or even death. Supporters state that early detection of these conditions can provide for early treatment that can SB 1095 Page 8 affect a child's long-term health or survival. Supporters argue that instead of using the current system of adding new diseases to the screening program though legislation, this bill allows the state to conform to federal recommendations, which would avoid unnecessary delays and allow for comprehensive testing. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: California Right to Life, Inc. argues that this bill does not correct the issue of the limited ability to opt out of the screening program for religious beliefs or practices and may even bring discrimination against parents or guardians who do opt out. Prepared by:Reyes Diaz / HEALTH / 5/31/16 21:31:41 **** END ****