BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 641
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 18, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 641 (Feuer) - As Amended: May 10, 2011
Policy Committee: JudiciaryVote:7-2
Health Vote: 13-4
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill implements several recommendations related to a recent
state audit of penalty accounts within the Department of Public
Health (DPH). Specifically, this bill:
1)Streamlines the citation appeals process for long-term health
care facilities (LTC facilities) by eliminating Citation
Review Conferences (CRCs).
2)Increases the maximum fine for Class "B" citations for LTC
facilities.
3)Allows fines to be levied from both state and federal agencies
when an incident at a LTC facility violates both state and
federal laws.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)The elimination of CRCs will likely have a minimal fiscal
impact on DPH operations. DPH indicates the total annual
costs for CRCs are $470,000, but that staff is redirected from
other priority assignments in order to complete work for CRCs.
Eliminating CRCs would free up staff resources within the
Licensing and Certification program to focus on other
activities, some of which currently have a backlog.
2)Estimated increased penalty revenues from increasing the
maximum penalty for a Class B citation in the range of
$400,000- $800,000.
COMMENTS
AB 641
Page 2
1)Rationale . According to the author, the current citation
review conference (CRC) process is inefficient and
ineffective. CRC appeals can sometimes take years, and due to
appeals, the CRC process rarely provide a means to settle
cases. The author maintains that it makes sense to remove the
CRC appeals process in favor of the more trusted appeals
processes in existing law, such as an administrative law judge
or a California Superior Court.
The author further argues that Class "B" citations for LTC
facilities have not been modified since 1985, and can include
fairly serious incidents. The author maintains that the
current maximum penalty of $1,000 does not reflect the gravity
of the worst Class "B" incidents, such as serious pest
infestations or sexual abuse, and that the department should
have the ability in these cases to levy a penalty of $2,000.
The author also argues that California is one of a few states
that bars a monetary penalty from both a state and federal
agency when a LTC facility action involves noncompliance with
both a state and federal law. The author asserts that it
makes sense to allow both entities to act if the laws of
either were violated. According to the author, there are no
requirements in this bill that such levies should be done for
each and every citation and this bill provides DPH with the
discretion to cite a higher penalty for the most egregious
violations.
2)Recent State Auditor's Report . A recent state audit made a
number of findings and recommendations regarding the state's
processes for issuing citations against LTC facilities,
collecting penalties, and tracking related financial
information. The state auditor found that a backlog of CRC
appeals was impeding the state's ability to collect penalty
revenue and that it could take steps to increase penalty
revenue. In response to the report, DPH also made three
recommendations that address the auditor's findings. This
bill implements these recommendations.
Analysis Prepared by : Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 641
Page 3