BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                      



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 345|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                              UNFINISHED BUSINESS


          Bill No:  SB 345
          Author:   Wolk (D), et al.
          Amended:  8/21/12
          Vote:     21

           
           SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE  :  4-2, 1/10/12
          AYES:  Liu, Hancock, Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Emmerson, Berryhill
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Strickland

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  6-2, 1/17/12
          AYES:  Kehoe, Alquist, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Steinberg
          NOES:  Walters, Emmerson
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Runner

           SENATE FLOOR  :  26-9, 1/23/12
          AYES:  Alquist, Blakeslee, Calderon, Corbett, Correa, De 
            Le�n, DeSaulnier, Hancock, Hernandez, Kehoe, Leno, Lieu, 
            Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, 
            Rubio, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Wolk, 
            Wright, Yee
          NOES:  Anderson, Berryhill, Dutton, Emmerson, Fuller, 
            Gaines, Harman, Huff, Walters
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Cannella, Evans, La Malfa, Runner, 
            Wyland

           ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  70-8, 8/23/12 - See last page for vote


           SUBJECT  :    Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman

           SOURCE  :     Committee for an Independent State Ombudsman
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 345
                                                                Page 
          2



           DIGEST  :    This bill conforms various provisions of the 
          codes authorizing the Office of State Long-Term Care 
          Ombudsman (OSLTCO) to federal statutes.

           Assembly Amendments  change the annual advocacy plan to an 
          annual advocacy report, and provide clarifying language.

           ANALYSIS  :    Existing law:

          1.Establishes the Long-Term Care Ombudsman program as a 
            result of the federal Older Americans Act and places it 
            within the California Department of Aging in order to 
            encourage community contact and involvement with elderly 
            patients or residents of long-term care facilities or 
            residential facilities through the use of volunteers and 
            volunteer programs.  Federal law generally prohibits 
            ombudsman from making a disclosure of personal 
            information pertaining to an ombudsman program client, 
            unless the client provides written consent.

          2.Allocates funds to local ombudsman programs to assist 
            elderly persons in long-term health care facilities and 
            residential care facilities by, among other things, 
            investigating and seeking to resolve complaints against 
            these facilities.

          3.Provides for the appointment of a state ombudsman and 
            specifies certain requirements of the person filling that 
            position.

          4.Requires the department to establish an 11-member 
            advisory council for the office to provide advice and 
            consultation on issues affecting the provision of 
            ombudsman services.

          This bill: 

          1.Adds legislative findings and declarations and conforms 
            existing codes with regard to the OSLTCO and the State 
            Long-Term Care Ombudsman's (SLTCO) roles and 
            responsibilities, to federal law. 


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 345
                                                                Page 
          3

          2.Establishes recruitment guidelines when the position of 
            SLTCO becomes vacant to assure the SLTCO has experience 
            and expertise in the fields of long-term care and 
            advocacy. 

          3.Requires, rather than authorizes, the OSLTCO to hire 
            legal representation in the event the Attorney General is 
            unavailable, for litigation related to the affairs of the 
            office. 

          4.Shifts from the Department of Aging (CDA) to the OSLTCO, 
            responsibility for the development of a statewide uniform 
            reporting system to collect and analyze data relative to 
            complaints and conditions in long-term care facilities. 

          5.Requires the SLTCO to report to the Legislature and local 
            long-term care ombudsman programs annually on prospective 
            advocacy plans. 

          6.Requires the OSLTCO to maintain a Web site within the 
            CDA's Web site, and that the Web site be consumer driven 
            and include various long-term care related information, 
            and requires the OSLTCO to staff the 24-hour, long-term 
            care ombudsman hotline. 

          7.Requires the CDA and other departments and programs 
            involved in regulating, monitoring, or serving long-term 
            care facility residents to cooperate with the OSLTCO to 
            address concerns and questions about care, quality of 
            life, safety of long-term care facility residents. 

          8.Allows the OSLTC to advise the public of long-term care 
            facility inspection reports, deficiencies, and plans of 
            correction; promote visitation programs, establish and 
            assist in the development of resident, family, and 
            friends' councils, and present community education 
            programs. 

           Background
           
          California's Ombudsman program began in 1979 in response to 
          federal efforts to improve conditions for residents of 
          nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.  Shoddy 
          conditions and poor care had prompted Congressional 

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 345
                                                                Page 
          4

          interest, and a 1978 amendment to the federal Older 
          Americans Act requiring states to create ombudsman programs 
          that could investigate and resolve complaints at nursing 
          homes and advocate for residents by commenting on laws and 
          policies, and identifying widespread problems.

           Senate review of the state ombudsman.   In November 2009, 
          the Senate Office of Oversight and Outcomes, which is part 
          of the Office of the President pro Tempore, prepared a 
          report for the Rules Committee, at the request of the 
          Health Committee's Subcommittee on Aging and Long-Term 
          Care.  The report's title provides its own executive 
          summary:   California's Elder Abuse Investigators:  
          Ombudsmen Shackled by Conflicting Laws and Duties  .

          Among the findings of the report:  "Local coordinators in 
          California say that having a political appointee running 
          the state office makes it hard for the program to speak out 
          on issues concerning long-term care residents, one of the 
          original intents of the federal ombudsman program.  
          California's state ombudsman (in talking with the Oversight 
          office) said he supported steps that would give him more 
          flexibility and independence."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes   
          Local:  No

          According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee

           Minor costs, not likely to exceed $50,000 annually, may 
            be incurred by the OSLTCO to comply with certain new 
            requirements of this bill that are not required by 
            federal law, including maintenance of an Internet Web 
            site, preparation of an annual advocacy report, 
            requirement to hire outside counsel in the case of a 
            conflict of interest generated by representation by the 
            Attorney General, and reconstitution of an advisory 
            council. These costs are expected to be absorbable within 
            existing federal fund resources. 

           The SLTCO indicates many other listed duties that conform 
            to federal law are currently being performed by the 
            office and will not result in increased costs. 


                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 345
                                                                Page 
          5

           SUPPORT  :   (Verified  1/18/12)(unable to reverify at time 
          of writing)

          Committee for an Independent State Ombudsman (source) 
          AARP
          Long Term Care Services of Ventura County
          Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County
          Wise & Healthy Aging

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :    According to the author's office, 
          under its present structure, the state's ombudsman program 
          is not advocating effectively for residents.  Community 
          activists have informed the author that California's office 
          is ineffective, citing the state ombudsman's lack of public 
          support on legislative issues pertaining to long-term care. 
           As an appointee of the director of the Department on 
          Aging, the state ombudsman, says the author, is expected to 
          take the same position on legislation and other public 
          policy matters as the Department of Aging takes.


          ASSEMBLY FLOOR  :  70-8, 8/23/12
          AYES:  Achadjian, Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, 
            Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, 
            Brownley, Buchanan, Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, 
            Carter, Cedillo, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Davis, Dickinson, 
            Eng, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Furutani, Beth 
            Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gordon, Gorell, 
            Halderman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hill, Huber, Hueso, 
            Huffman, Jeffries, Lara, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma, Mendoza, 
            Mitchell, Monning, Nestande, Nielsen, Norby, Olsen, Pan, 
            Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino, Silva, Skinner, 
            Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Valadao, Wagner, 
            Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A. P�rez
          NOES:  Donnelly, Grove, Hagman, Jones, Knight, Logue, 
            Mansoor, Morrell
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Roger Hern�ndez, Miller


          CTW:n   8/25/12   Senate Floor Analyses 

                         SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  SEE ABOVE

                                ****  END  ****

                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 345
                                                                Page 
          6














































                                                           CONTINUED