BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1278
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1278 (Hill)
As Amended January 4, 2012
Majority vote
HEALTH 12-5 APPROPRIATIONS 12-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Monning, Ammiano, Atkins, |Ayes:|Fuentes, Blumenfield, |
| |Bonilla, Eng, Gordon, | |Bradford, Charles |
| |Hayashi, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Bonnie Lowenthal, | |Chesbro, Gatto, Hall, |
| |Mitchell, Pan, | |Hill, Ammiano, Mitchell, |
| |V. Manuel P�rez, Williams | |Solorio |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Logue, Garrick, Mansoor, |Nays:|Harkey, Donnelly, |
| |Silva, Smyth | |Nielsen, Norby, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Extends the current ban on tobacco use in workplaces,
including hospitals, to include the entire hospital campus.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits, on and after March 1, 2013, smoking in all areas of
a general acute care hospital and throughout the entire
hospital campus, including, but not limited to, buildings,
parking areas, plazas, vehicles, underground passages, and
sidewalks, unless there is a government-mandated exception.
2)Exempts public thoroughfares and sidewalks adjacent to the
general acute care hospital, but not owned by the hospital,
and specified property owned or leased by the hospital that is
used for non-health care-related purposes from the prohibition
in 1) above.
3)Permits smoking on a hospital campus by a patient with the
written approval of the treating physician.
4)Requires a general acute care hospital to post conspicuous
signs of the no smoking policy at building entrances and other
locations and to inform new and current employees of the
policy.
AB 1278
Page 2
5)Allows a general acute care hospital to provide interested
patients, visitors, and staff with information on, or refer
them to, smoking cessation services.
6)Permits a city, county, or city and county to adopt and
enforce additional smoking and tobacco control ordinances,
regulations, or policies that are no less stringent than the
applicable standards in this bill.
7)Declares the intent of this bill to encourage and assist
smokers to quit tobacco use and to reduce the associated risks
of tobacco smoke to hospital patients, staff, and visitors.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Prohibits smoking in an enclosed space at a place of
employment including lobbies, waiting areas, elevators,
stairwells, and restrooms that are a structural part of the
building.
2)Exempts specified areas of workplaces from the smoking ban
including: a specified percentage of hotel and motel rooms;
parts of hotel lobbies; warehouses; patient smoking areas in
long-term care facilities; small businesses; and, certain
employee break rooms.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Negligible state fiscal impact to the Department of Public
Health to continue oversight of hospital licensure.
2)To the extent that this more comprehensive smoking ban on
hospital campuses reduces the number of cigarettes purchased
by hospital employees, visitors, and patients, there could be
a minor reduction in revenues to various state tobacco tax
funds.
COMMENTS : The author states that while smoking is generally
prohibited in patient areas, waiting rooms, and visiting rooms
of health facilities, there are still many areas within a
hospital campus where smoking is permitted. The author asserts
that exposure to second-hand smoke should be eliminated to the
AB 1278
Page 3
extent possible for staff, visitors, and patients, in
particular, while they are recovering and/or seeking medical
treatment. Furthermore, the author maintains that
hospitalization for treatment of an acute health problem,
specifically an illness related to tobacco use, forces smokers
to confront the consequences of their addiction and, frequently,
to make a commitment to stop. The author argues that smoke free
hospital campuses motivate patients, visitors, and employees to
quit tobacco use in a supportive environment that is prepared to
provide cessation assistance to smokers.
According to research published in 2009 in the British Medical
Journal Tobacco Control, more than half of accredited hospitals
in the U.S. have instituted completely smoke-free medical
campuses. Many of these hospitals report that they took this
step because smoking was contrary to their mission of treating
the ill and promoting public health. Research published in the
January 2010 Journal of Hospital Medicine that evaluated the
impact of a smoke-free medical campus policy at an acute care
facility in New York found that the employee smoking rate fell
from 14% in the year preceding the ban to 9% in the year after
the ban was implemented. Similarly, an article in the September
2010 American Journal of Health Promotion reported that the quit
rate among medical staff at smoke-free hospitals was higher than
at other hospitals and 60% of those employees who reported quit
attempts or not smoking indicated that a tobacco-free hospital
policy was influential in their efforts. Smoke-free laws have
been shown to reduce cardiac hospitalizations by decreasing
second-hand smoke exposure among non-smokers and reducing
smoking. The larger contribution to improved health has been the
reduction in second-hand smoke.
The sponsor of this bill, Breathe California, states that
hospitals that have established smoke-free campuses have taken
an important step in advancing public health and report almost
no problems with compliance or enforcement of their
restrictions, with minimal cost. The California Hospital
Association notes in support that, on a daily basis, California
hospitals see the negative effects smoking can have on the
health of their patients and the increased costs it can have on
the health system.
Analysis Prepared by : Cassie Royce / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
AB 1278
Page 4
FN: 0003019