BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1278
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1278 (Hill)
As Amended January 26, 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 purposes unrelated to health care 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 and secondhand 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 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
AB 1278
Page 3
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
FN: 0003073
AB 1278
Page 4