BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1593
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 14, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 1593 (Yamada) - As Introduced: January 4, 2010
Policy Committee: Health Vote:18-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill exempts two veterans' homes located in Lancaster and
Ventura from a current law moratorium on the licensing of new
Adult Day Health Care(ADHC) programs.
FISCAL EFFECT
Annual costs in the range of $450,000 (50% GF) to provide ADHC
services to 40 Medi-Cal eligible individuals eventually enrolled
in the two veterans homes addressed in this bill. Annual costs
per ADHC participant are $11,000. The two facilities addressed
in this bill are currently under construction.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill, sponsored by the California Association
for Adult Day Services (CAADS), modifies a moratorium placed
on ADHC expansion. The moratorium was established by SB 1103
(Committee on Budget), Chapter 228, Statutes of 2004. The
moratorium has been extended since it was established to hold
program costs steady and increase oversight over various
enrollment and payment issues.
2)Background . ADHC are licensed community-based day care
programs providing a variety of health, therapeutic, and
social services to elderly and disabled adults at risk of
being placed in a nursing home. There are over 300 ADHC
centers statewide serving from 25 to 275 individuals at each
site. Approximately 37,000 clients are served statewide and
total caseload has declined by approximately 13% since the
moratorium has been place.
3)Budget Proposals and Actions . The governor's 2010-11 budget
contains a proposal to eliminate ADHC as a Medi-Cal benefit
AB 1593
Page 2
and other budget proposals to reduce costs if ADHC is not
eliminated. The 2009-10 Budget Act included $28 million (GF)
in savings associated with several changes: a) a three-day per
week cap on services (a court injunction has prevented this
change), b) standards on medical necessity (a court injunction
has prevented this change), c) on-site treatment authorization
requests, and d) a freeze on provider rates as of August 2009.
4)Related Legislation . AB 369 (Yamada) in 2009 was nearly
identical to this bill and was vetoed due to cost concerns and
because the facilities are still under construction. The veto
message also encouraged the author to pursue action through
the budget process.
Analysis Prepared by : Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081