BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2387
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 6, 2010
Counsel: Meghan Masera
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
AB 2387 (Miller) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
SUMMARY : Defines "local law enforcement patient" as any person
seeking medical treatment or examination while in the custody of
law enforcement and removes the sunset date on state law that
allows law enforcement agencies to contract for emergency health
services for inmates and prohibits the release of inmates from
custody for the purpose of seeking medical care, with the intent
to re-arrest. Specifically, this bill :
1)Deletes the January 1, 2014 repeal date of the state law that
allows state and local law enforcement agencies to contract
with providers of emergency health services for care to local
law enforcement patients while prohibiting them from releasing
inmates from custody for the purpose of seeking medical care,
with the intent to re-arrest.
2)Defines "local law enforcement patient" as any person seeking
medical treatment or examination, in the custody of an officer
of a county sheriff's department, a city or county police
department, or a local detention facility, regardless of
whether or not the person in custody has been delivered,
received, or booked in any county, city, city and county, or
other local jail or detention facility.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that a county sheriff, police chief or other public
agency that contracts for emergency health services, may
contract with providers of emergency health care services for
care to local law enforcement patients. Hospitals that do not
contract with the county sheriff, police chief, or other
public agency that contracts for emergency health care
services shall provide emergency health care services to local
law enforcement patients at a rate equal to 110 percent of the
hospital's actual costs according to the most recent Hospital
Annual Financial Data report issued by the Office of Statewide
AB 2387
Page 2
Health Planning and Development, as calculated using a
cost-to-charge ratio. [Penal Code Section 4011.10(b).]
2)Prohibits a county sheriff or police chief from requesting the
release of an inmate from custody for the purpose of allowing
the inmate to seek medical care at a hospital, and then
immediately re-arresting the same individual upon discharge
from the hospital, unless the hospital determines this action
would enable it to bill and collect from a third-party payment
source. [Penal Code Section 4011.10(c).]
3)Creates the Inmate Health Care and Medical Provider Fair
Pricing Working Group consisting of members from the
California Hospital Association, the University of California,
the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California
Police Chiefs' Association to identify and resolve industry
issues that create fiscal barriers to timely and affordable
emergency inmate health care. [Penal Code Section
4011.10(d).]
4)States legislative intent to provide county sheriffs, chiefs
of police, and directors or administrators of local detention
facilities with an incentive to not engage in practices
designed to avoid payment of legitimate emergency health care
costs for the treatment or examination of persons lawfully in
their custody, and to promptly pay those costs as requested by
the provider of services. [Penal Code Section 4011.10(a).]
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "Increasingly,
hospitals are being asked to provide care for individuals for
whom they are receiving no compensation. One group of such
individuals is patients brought to the hospital, usually
through the emergency room, by law enforcement. These are
individuals who sometimes are under arrest, but who have not
yet necessarily been booked. In many parts of the state,
hospitals are receiving very little or no compensation for the
care provided to these patients. This practice cannot
continue. It simply is not fair to expect hospitals to bear
this burden, in addition to all the other care they are
required to provide with little or no compensation."
AB 2387
Page 3
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"California hospitals are bearing the burden of providing
medical services to arrestees of law enforcement agencies.
For those arrestees that have not yet been booked, a hospital
may or may not receive some payment for those services. AB
2387 would clarify that local law enforcement is responsible
for paying for the medical care of individuals they bring into
the hospital, whether that individual has been booked yet or
not."
3)Judicial Interpretation : In Sharp Healthcare v. County of San
Diego, the court held that the County of San Diego was not
liable for the medical care expenses of a person arrested and
treated at a hospital before the arrestee was committed to a
county jail. [Sharp Healthcare v. County of San Diego (2007)
156 Cal. App. 4th 1301 [68 Cal. Rptr. 3d 152], rehg den. Feb.
20, 2008.]
In Sharp, a group of hospitals sued the San Diego County
Sheriff's Department and the County of San Diego after the
County notified the hospitals that it would no longer pay for
the medical care expenses of arrestees who received treatment
at the hospitals before they were booked or otherwise
committed into the county jail. (Sharp Healthcare v. County
of San Diego, supra, 156 Cal. App. 4th 1301, 1304.)
The County did not dispute the fact that it was required to pay
for the medical care of arrestees after they had been booked
into county jail. However, the County argued that statutory
law did not require the County to pay for the medical care of
arrestees before they were booked into county jail. (Sharp
Healthcare v. County of San Diego, supra, 156 Cal. App. 4th
1301, 1306.)
The court felt that the Legislature had unambiguously expressed
its intent to eliminate a county's liability for a
precommitment arrestee's medical care expenses in the laws it
had passed and thus held in favor of the County. (Sharp
Healthcare v. County of San Diego, supra, 156 Cal. App. 4th
1301, 1313.)
Since the ruling in Sharp, many counties have notified hospitals
in their jurisdictions that they will no longer be reimbursing
the hospitals for the expense of any precommitment arrestee's
medical care. Counties argue that the Sharp ruling clarifies
AB 2387
Page 4
that they are not responsible for these expenses unless the
inmates have been booked and in the custody of the county
jail.
4)Argument in Support : According to the California Hospital
Association (the sponsor of this bill), "California hospitals
are increasingly bearing the burden of providing medical
services to pre-booked arrestees. Under existing law, local
law enforcement cannot release an inmate from jail in order to
seek medical care with the intent to re-arrest upon discharge.
However, the law fails to apply the same provisions to
arrestees intended for booking in a local jail facility. For
the most part, hospitals are reimbursed very little for the
care provided to these individuals and in many cases receive
no reimbursement at all."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California State
Sheriffs' Association , "This bill essentially overturns the
ruling of Sharp Healthcare v. County of San Diego (2007) 156
Cal. App. 4th 1301 which held that the County was not liable
for the medical care expenses of a person arrested and treated
at a hospital before (emphasis in original) the arrestee is
committed to the county jail. The bill not only attempts to
overturn the court ruling, but it is a significant cost shift
to local law enforcement. Additionally, representatives of
the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California
Police Chiefs' Association, along with other affected
organizations, are part of a collaborative Inmate Health Care
and Medical Provider Fair Pricing Working Group which serves
to address these very types of issues."
6)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 159 (Runner), Chapter 481, Statutes of 2005,
authorized county sheriffs, chiefs of police, and directors
or administrators of local departments of correction to
contract with providers of emergency health care services
and prohibited a county sheriff or police chief from
releasing inmates from custody for the purpose of seeking
medical care, with the intent to re-arrest. SB 159 had a
sunset date of January 1, 2009.
b) SB 896 (Runner), Chapter 303, Statutes of 2006, allowed
other public agencies that contract for emergency health
services to contract with providers for emergency health
AB 2387
Page 5
care services for care to local law enforcement patients.
c) SB 1169 (Runner), Chapter 142, Statutes of 2008,
extended the sunset provision of the existing law that
authorized county sheriffs, chiefs of police, and directors
or administrators of local departments of correction to
contract with providers of emergency health care services
and prohibited a county sheriff or police chief from
releasing inmates from custody for the purpose of seeking
medical care, with the intent to re-arrest to January 1,
2014.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Hospital Association (Sponsor)
University of California
Opposition
California State Association of Counties
California State Sheriffs' Association
Analysis Prepared by : Meghan Masera / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744