BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  AB 2608
                                                                  Page  1


          ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
          AB 2608 (Bonilla)
          As Amended  May 25, 2012
          Majority vote 

           HEALTH              18-0        APPROPRIATIONS      17-0        
           
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Ayes:|Monning, Logue, Ammiano,  |Ayes:|Fuentes, Harkey,          |
          |     |Atkins, Bonilla, Eng,     |     |Blumenfield, Bradford,    |
          |     |Garrick, Gordon, Hayashi, |     |Charles Calderon, Campos, |
          |     |Roger Hern�ndez,          |     |Davis, Donnelly, Gatto,   |
          |     |Bonnie Lowenthal,         |     |Ammiano, Hill, Lara,      |
          |     |Mansoor, Mitchell,        |     |Mitchell, Nielsen, Norby, |
          |     |Nestande, Pan,            |     |Solorio, Wagner           |
          |     |V. Manuel P�rez, Silva,   |     |                          |
          |     |Williams                  |     |                          |
          |     |                          |     |                          |
          |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
          |     |                          |     |                          |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           SUMMARY  :  Eliminates the January 1, 2013, sunset clause and 
          revises existing provisions implementing the Medicaid local 
          billing option (LBO) that allows local educational agencies 
          (LEAs) to obtain federal matching funds for health care services 
          provided by schools to Medi-Cal eligible students.  
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Requires the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) to seek 
            a state plan amendment and to revise applicable regulatory 
            requirements pertaining to medical transportation services 
            provided by LEAs so that LEAs may seek reimbursement for 
            services as allowed under federal law.

          2)Requires funds withheld from the federal matching funds due to 
            each LEA be collected by reducing payments to all 
            participating LEAs proportionately and deletes the requirement 
            that these funds derive only from an amount that exceeds the 
            baseline amount as set by LEA billing revenues for the 2000-01 
            fiscal year (FY). 

          3)Adds a requirement that DHCS include, in the annual report 
            filed with the Legislature, an accounting of funds that are 
            withheld from federal matching funds and used by DHCS to fund 








                                                                  AB 2608
                                                                  Page  2


            staff and administer the LEA billing option.  Requires the 
            report to detail the amounts withheld from funds that would 
            otherwise be due to each participating LEA.  

          4)Adds a requirement that the activities of DHCS include 
            collaboration with the California Department of Education 
            (CDE) in order to ensure LEA compliance with state and federal 
            requirements and to help improve LEA participation.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Assembly Appropriations 
          Committee:

          1)One-time minor, absorbable costs to DHCS to modify regulations 
            to be no more restrictive than federal requirements.  Ongoing 
            costs for additional reporting and collaboration with CDE 
            should also be minor and absorbable.

          2)New federal funding for schools, potentially in millions of 
            dollars according to the Los Angeles Unified School District 
            (LAUSD), to the extent schools may be able to submit 
            additional transportation services for federal reimbursement.  

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, this bill is necessary to 
          prevent school districts from losing federal funds for health 
          services that school districts are required to provide.  In 
          addition, the author points out, existing state policies prevent 
          school districts from seeking federal reimbursement for certain 
          school transportation that is otherwise reimbursable under 
          federal guidelines.  In light of the current budget proposal to 
          eliminate funding for home-to-school transportation, overly 
          restrictive state rules and regulations need to be better 
          aligned with federal rules to allow for reimbursement for 
          transportation of students with disabilities.  The author argues 
          that expanding the LBO program in this fashion would generate 
          millions of dollars statewide for necessary school 
          transportation for students with disabilities.  For example, 
          LAUSD currently spends $77 million on transportation for 13,000 
          students with disabilities.  However, under the current state 
          rules, LAUSD is only able to receive $2 million in federal 
          reimbursement.  Currently, state rules do not allow 
          reimbursement for a child who requires transportation in a 
          vehicle adapted to serve the needs of the disabled such as a 
          specially adapted school bus unless the child is in a wheel 
          chair or a gurney.  According to the author, federal rules are 








                                                                  AB 2608
                                                                  Page  3


          not so restrictive.  According to LAUSD, many of the 
          responsibilities of DHCS related to the LBO program are set to 
          expire in 2013.  This bill is also needed to continue DHCS 
          efforts to increase the amount of Medicaid reimbursement 
          received by California schools.  LAUSD also argues, in support, 
          that greater transparency and accountability in the work 
          performed by DHCS is needed.  According to LAUSD, DHCS is able 
          to withhold certain amounts from the federal reimbursement 
          dollars that go to schools in order to offset the costs to DHCS 
          for administering the LBO program.  LAUSD states that protecting 
          and properly accounting for these withhold amounts ensures that 
          schools are receiving the federal money they are due.

          DHCS is also proposing to delete the January 1, 2013, LBO 
          program sunset date.  The DHCS proposal is through the FY 
          2012-13 Budget as budget trailer bill language (TBL).  The TBL 
          also eliminates the requirement that a baseline LBO funding 
          amount must be met prior to funding LBO contractor costs, and 
          removes the maximum annual funding limit of $1.5 million for 
          DHCS administrative and contractor costs.  According to DHCS, 
          eliminating the baseline requirement prior to funding the LBO 
          administrative costs would allow DHCS to reduce federal Medicaid 
          payments to fund contractor costs without delay.  Not acting 
          could potentially restrict DHCS from generating sufficient funds 
          to cover all necessary contractor costs.  The LBO program 
          baseline funding level for FY 2000-01 was approximately $60 
          million.  Currently, DHCS monitors reimbursements to the LEAs to 
          ensure the baseline requirement is met prior to funding 
          contractor costs required for the LBO program.

          Unlike this bill, however, the TBL proposed to set the annual 
          funding as an amount that would be agreed upon between DHCS and 
          the LEA Committee.  DHCS argued that this would allow sufficient 
          flexibility to accommodate reasonable cost increases associated 
          with contract services.  The current amount has remained static 
          since 2001.  The Assembly and Senate Budget subcommittees that 
          have considered this issue have rejected the TBL proposal and 
          are deferring to the policy committees and this bill.  


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Marjorie Swartz / HEALTH / (916) 
          319-2097 










                                                                  AB 2608
                                                                  Page  4


                                                                FN: 0003956