BILL ANALYSIS �
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
AB 2508 (Bonilla) - Public contracts: public health agencies.
Amended: July 2, 2012 Policy Vote: GO 8-4
Urgency: No Mandate: No
Hearing Date: August 6, 2012
Consultant: Brendan McCarthy
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill Summary: AB 2508 would prohibit state agencies that manage
specified public benefit programs from contracting for call
center services outside the state.
Fiscal Impact:
By requiring state agencies to only contract for call
center services that will be performed in the state, the
bill will potentially increase costs to state agencies.
Because wages and other costs tend to be higher in
California than in surrounding states or countries, the cost
of call center services provided in California is likely to
be higher than services provided in lower cost states or
countries. The size of this impact is unknown and would
depend on future contract proposals.
To the extent the bill requires jobs to be located in
California, the bill will increase state tax revenues.
According to the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax
Board, the average private sector job is responsible for
about $3,600 per year in General Fund tax revenue.
The net fiscal impact of the bill is uncertain. Whether the net
fiscal impact to the state is positive or negative would depend
on the relative cost difference between providing services in
California versus other states or countries.
For example, the state's Medi-Cal program is generally funded
with 50 percent General Fund and 50 percent federal funds. If
the cost gap for call center operations between California and a
neighboring state is more than $7,200 per job per year, the
state would save more money contracting for out of state
services ($3,600) than it would gain from General Fund tax
AB 2508 (Bonilla)
Page 1
revenues. If the cost gap is less, the state would receive more
in taxes than the cost savings. For programs with greater state
funding (or which are funded by block grants) the cost gap at
which the state would break even would be narrower.
Background: State agencies manage several public benefit
programs which provide health and welfare benefits to California
residents. The state agencies that manage these programs
contract with outside providers to provide call center services.
These call centers assist program participants with enrollment
and benefit issues.
Most of the existing contracts issued by these state departments
require call centers to be located within the state. However,
the Department of Social Services contracts for a call center in
Mexico and a backup site in Texas.
Total spending by these state agencies for call center contracts
is in the tens of millions per year.
Proposed Law: AB 2508 would prohibit state agencies that manage
specified public benefit programs from contracting for call
center services outside the state.
The bill would apply to CalWORKS, CalFresh, Medi-Cal,
Healthy Families, and the California Healthcare Eligibility,
Enrollment, and Retention System.
The bill applies to contracts with state agencies and any
subcontracts.
The bill would impose penalties on a contractor for
noncompliance.
The bill would allow the Governor to waive its requirements
during an emergency.
The bill's provisions would not apply if implementation
would violate the Agreement on Government Procurement of the
World Trade Organization, agreements currently in place, or
contracts between a state agency and a health plan or
insurer.
Staff Comments: While the sponsors of the bill have indicated
that the intent of the bill is to only require call centers to
be located in the state, the requirement that all subcontracts
be performed in the state could expand the application of the
bill by requiring specialized subcontractors (for example tax
AB 2508 (Bonilla)
Page 2
preparers or information technology providers) to also be
located in the state. Such an interpretation could complicate
implementation and increase costs.
It is not clear whether the bill is enforceable under federal
case law under the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution or the Agreement on Government Procurement of the
World Trade Organization.