BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 949|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 949
Author: Krekorian (D)
Amended: 9/5/07 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE : 3-2, 7/10/07
AYES: Alquist, Romero, Yee
NOES: Harman, Cogdill
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 9-3, 08/22/07
AYES: Torlakson, Cedillo, Corbett, Kuehl, Oropeza,
Ridley-Thomas, Simitian, Steinberg, Yee
NOES: Cox, Ashburn, Wyland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Aanestad, Battin, Dutton, Florez, Runner
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 42-31, 5/17/07 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Residential care facilities for the elderly:
resident transfers
SOURCE : Bet Tzedek Legal Services
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
DIGEST : This bill establishes procedures and duties for
a residential care facility for the elderly prior to
transferring a resident to another facility or living
arrangement as a result of forfeiture of a license or
change of the use of the facility.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/5/07 are clarifying and
CONTINUED
AB 949
Page
2
technical.
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1. Provides for the licensure and regulation of residential
care facilities for the elderly by the Department of
Social Services (DSS), and provides that a violation of
these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.
2. Provides for the refund to applicant or resident of part
of a preadmission fee in excess of $500 under certain
conditions.
3. Establishes an ombudsman program within all area boards
for the aging.
This bill:
1. Requires that, prior to transferring a resident to
another facility or living arrangement as a result of
forfeiture of a license or change of use of the
facility, a licensed residential care facility for the
elderly take the following specified actions:
A. Prepare an evaluation of the relocation needs of
each resident to be transferred, completed prior to
giving written notice of the transfer to the resident
or his or her legal representative, including a
recommendation regarding the type of facility that
would best meet the resident's need and a list of
facilities, within a 60-mile radius of the resident's
current facility, that meet the resident's present
needs.
B. Provides that each resident or the resident's
responsible person a written notice not later than 60
days before the intended eviction.
C. Include in the notice of intended eviction the
reasons for the eviction, a copy of the resident's
current service plan, and the right of the resident
or resident's legal representative to contact DSS to
AB 949
Page
3
investigate the reasons given for the eviction.
D. Discuss the relocation evaluation with the
resident or legal representative within 30 days.
E. Submit a written report of any eviction to the
licensing agency within five days.
2. Prohibits a facility from accepting new residents or
entering into new admission agreements upon issuing the
90-day written notice.
3. Provides a formula for reimbursement of all or part of
prepaid admission fees in excess of $500 when a resident
of a residential care facility for the elderly is
evicted:
A. A 100 percent refund if preadmission fees were
paid within six months of notice of eviction.
B. A 75 percent refund if preadmission fees were paid
more than six months but not more than 12 months
before notice of eviction.
C. A 50 percent refund if preadmission fees were paid
more than 12 months but less than 18 months before
notice of eviction.
D. A 25 percent refund if preadmission fees were paid
more than 18 months but less than 25 months before
notice of eviction.
4. Requires the refund to be paid within 15 days of issuing
the eviction notice and allows the resident to request
that the licensee provide an equal credit toward the
resident's monthly fee obligation.
5. Provides that, if a resident gives notice five days
before leaving the facility, the licensee shall refund
to the resident a proportional per diem amount of any
prepaid monthly fees at the time the resident vacates
the facility and shall make the refund within seven days
of the resident's departure.
AB 949
Page
4
6. Requires the licensee, within 10 days of all residents
having left the facility, to submit to DSS and the local
ombudsman program a list of the names and new locations
of all residents who were evicted.
7. Requires the residential care facility for the elderly
to submit a proposed relocation plan to DSS if seven or
more residents will be transferred as a result of the
forfeiture or change of use.
8. Requires DSS to approve or disapprove the relocation
plan and monitor its implementation, in accordance with
the following:
A Upon submission of the plan, the residential care
facility for the elderly is prohibited from accepting
new residents and entering into new admission
agreements.
B. The relocation plan shall meet the requirements
described in #'s 1 through 6 above and shall describe
the staff available to assist in transfers.
C. DSS shall approve or disapprove the plan within 15
working days and the plan shall take effect on the
date of the approval.
D. If DSS fails to take action within 20 days of
receipt of the plan, it will be deemed approved.
E. The residential care facility for the elderly may
submit an amended plan within 10 working days if DSS
disapproves the plan.
F. DSS shall inform the residential care facility for
the elderly, in writing, of the reasons if it fails
to approve a plan, and until such time as a plan has
been approved, the facility shall not issue a notice
of transfer or require any resident to transfer.
G. Upon approval of the plan, the licensee shall send
a copy to the local ombudsman program.
9. Requires DSS to take any necessary action to minimize
AB 949
Page
5
trauma for the residents, including contacting legal
agencies, use of physicians and other medical or
long-term care professional, if the residential care
facility for the elderly failed to provide require
relocation services, and if the director of DSS
determines that it is necessary to protect the residents
form physical or mental abuse, abandonment or other
substantial threat to health and safety.
10.Requires RCFE to reimburse DSS for the cost of providing
the relocation services if it fails to comply with its
mandated requirements.
11.Requires DSS to request that the Attorney General's
office, the city attorney's office or the local district
attorney's office seek injunctive relief and damages as
provided in Business and Professions Code Section 17200
et seq. if the facility fails to provide the required
relocation services, and DSS is not able to arrange for
the provision of those services.
12.Imposes civil penalties in the amount of $100 per
resident per day for each day that the facility is in
violation of the law until such time that the violation
is corrected; however, if the violation does not present
an immediate or substantial threat to the health or
safety of residents and the licensee corrects the
violation within three days after receipt of notice of
violation, the licensee shall not have to pay the civil
penalties.
13.Authorizes a resident of a residential care facility for
the elderly to bring a civil action against any person,
partnership, corporation who owns, operates, manages or
maintains a residential care facility for the elderly
who violates the rights of a resident set forth in the
bill, and provides that the owners, operators and
managers of a residential care facility for the elderly
are responsible for the acts of the facility's employees
and are liable for costs and attorney fees.
14.Excludes continuing care retirement communities from
coverage by the bill.
AB 949
Page
6
Background
Residential care facilities for the elderly are assisted
living facilities for the aged where varying levels and
intensities of care and supervision, protective
supervision, or personal care are provided, based upon
residents' varying needs. They are "not primarily
medically oriented," but "represent a humane approach to
meeting the housing, social or service needs of older
persons, and can provide a homelike environment for older
persons with a variety of car needs."
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2007-08 2008-09
2009-10 Fund
Department oversight Undetermined but minimal costs
Special*
*Licensing and Certification Fund
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/5/07)
Bet Tzedek Legal Services (co-source)
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform (co-source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees
Association of California Caregiver Resource Centers
California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform
California Alliance for Retired Americans
California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS
California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association
Community Resources for Independence
Consumer Attorneys for California
Corporon Law Office
Law Offices of Lawrence Solorio
Napa Long Term Care Ombudsman
Ombudsman Services of Northern California
Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County
San Francisco IHSS Public Authority
AB 949
Page
7
OPPOSITION : (Verified 9/5/07)
Community Residential Care Association of California
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Supporters state that this bill
ensures that, should a resident be transferred, their needs
will be duly considered and they will be given adequate
time to plan their relocation. Also, supporters argue that
this bill will reduce "transfer trauma," that can result
from an elderly person being forced to move. Also,
supporters believe that this bill will result in fewer
instances of medication regimens being interrupted and
fewer relocations without accompanying plans.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Community Residential Care
Facility Association of California opposes the bill on the
grounds that residential care facilities for the elderly
closure are rare, preadmission fee refunds are already
provided for in law, and the extensive contract between
licensee and residents covers aspects of closure.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Caballero,
Charles Calderon, Carter, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Hancock,
Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones, Karnette, Krekorian,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Ma, Mendoza, Mullin,
Nava, Parra, Portantino, Salas, Saldana, Solorio,
Swanson, Torrico, Wolk, Nunez
NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill,
Blakeslee, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller,
Gaines, Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Huff, Jeffries, Keene,
La Malfa, Maze, Nakanishi, Niello, Plescia, Sharon
Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer, Strickland, Tran,
Villines, Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Galgiani, Houston, Price, Richardson,
Ruskin, Soto, Vacancy
CTW:cm 9/5/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
AB 949
Page
8
**** END ****