BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2253
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2253 (Coto) - As Introduced: February 18, 2010
Policy Committee: Insurance
Vote:11-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill eliminates a five-year cap on a workers' compensation
cancer presumption for public safety professionals (e.g.: fire
firefighters, police officers, highway patrol) and quadruples
the rate at which professionals accrue the presumption. This
bill applies to tens of thousands of public safety professionals
statewide. Specifically, this bill:
1)Changes the five-year cap to a 15-year cap imposed following
termination of employment, on a workers' compensation cancer
presumption.
2)Eliminates a current law provision that extends three months
of presumption for each year of service and replaces this
provision with year-for-year presumption credit.
3)The cancer presumption extensions offered in this bill means
tens of thousands of state and local firefighting and law
enforcement employees who may be diagnosed with, or die of,
cancer-related causes receive the following benefits:
a) Full hospital
b) Surgical
c) Medical treatment
d) Disability indemnity
e) Death benefits
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Major out-year on-going costs to state and local government of
billions of dollars. For state employees such as the
California Highway Patrol, the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, the University of California,
AB 2253
Page 2
and a variety of peace officers, costs created by this bill
are 100% GF. More than 20,000 state-funded law enforcement and
firefighting personnel could eventually be made eligible for
the cancer presumption contained in this bill. GF costs will
likely exceed $200 million GF.
2)The cost of benefits that will accrue to individuals under
this cancer presumption range from several thousands of
dollars to hundreds of thousands per claim . These costs
reflect less serious conditions as well as major treatment,
indemnity benefits, and payments to eligible spouses and
dependents upon death of an eligible individual.
3)While public safety professionals routinely put their lives at
risk in the course of their work, most research does not
support a strong association between cancer and workplace
exposures. For example, recent statistical and epidemiological
analysis by the RAND Institute found no statistically
significant risk of cancer for police and fire fighters. In
other words, the cancer risk was found to be similar to the
general population.
4)Cancer is a leading cause of death for all individuals,
regardless of profession, and explains about one-third of
deaths of the retired professionals addressed by this bill.
There are several dozen major kinds of cancer with different
risk factors. For example, several cancers such as melanoma,
colorectal, and breast cancer have specific genetic risk for
which individuals can be tested. Many cancers, however, are
attributable to factors such as smoking, obesity, and sun
exposure.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill is sponsored by the California
Professional Firefighters (CPF) to extend a workers'
compensation cancer presumption for tens of thousands
professionals statewide. CPF represents more than 30,000
firefighters. According to the author and sponsor,
firefighters have routine exposure to carcinogens in the
course of their work. Under current law, some firefighters are
diagnosed with cancer when past the five-year cap after
retirement and are unable to access the presumption addressed
in this bill.
2)Presumptions . California workers' compensation law provides
that workers are provided compensation benefits when an injury
AB 2253
Page 3
or illness arises out of and in the course of employment.
Current law specifies that certain medical conditions suffered
by public safety officers (e.g., cancer, hernia, heart
trouble, pneumonia, tuberculosis, blood-borne infectious
disease, meningitis, and exposure to biochemical substances)
are presumed to have arisen in the course of employment. The
purpose of these statutory presumptions is to provide
additional compensation benefits to employees who provide
vital and hazardous services by easing their burden of proof
of industrial causation.
3)Recent Meta Analysis of Cancer Presumption Laws . A study
commissioned by the National League of Cities and completed by
a private firm specializing in public safety research and
analysis was published in April 2009. The study addressed
cancer presumption laws enacted in 43 states, including
California. Overall, researchers concluded a lack of evidence
to confirm or deny linkages between firefighting and increased
risk for more than a dozen specific cancers. Studies focused
on fire fighting are too few and too small to draw reliable
conclusions. In addition, an evaluation of state laws found
wide variability in cancer presumptions, cancers addressed,
and eligibility requirements.
4)Concerns . Dozens of city and county agencies oppose this bill.
According to opponents, public entities that employ safety
officers already face a nearly impossible burden in attempting
to defend presumption claims. Cities and counties statewide
are struggling with budget deficits. In addition, the
opposition is alarmed at the fiscal burden this bill creates
by lifting the five-year presumption cap.
5)Related Legislation . AB 128 (Coto) in 2009 was similar to this
bill but established a lifetime cancer presumption, rather
than a presumption limited to fifteen years. AB 128 was held
on the Suspense File of this committee.
Analysis Prepared by : Mary Ader / APPR. / (916) 319-2081