BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1758
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1758 (Patterson)
As Amended May 27, 2014
Majority vote
BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 14-0APPROPRIATIONS 17-0
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Bonilla, Jones, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Bocanegra, Campos, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Dickinson, Eggman, | |Calderon, Campos, |
| |Gordon, Hagman, Holden, | |Donnelly, Eggman, Gomez, |
| |Maienschein, Mullin, | |Holden, Jones, Linder, |
| |Skinner, Ting, Wilk | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Wagner, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires the initial license fee for dentists; dental
hygienists; physicians and surgeons; hearing aid dispensers;
occupational therapists; physical therapists; psychologists;
veterinary technicians; veterinarians; acupuncturists; and
architects to be prorated on a monthly basis, but authorizes
licensing boards to charge a total of up to one-half the initial
license fee for licenses in effect less than 12 months if the
board determines in writing that additional fees are necessary
to cover the reasonable costs of issuing the license.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Affected boards will likely experience some level of revenue
loss attributable to lower average initial licensure fees.
The revenue loss would not be great in proportion to annual
expenditures. However, it would increase fiscal pressure on
boards to raise fees. In some cases, fees are already set at
their statutory maximums.
2)Minor and absorbable costs to affected licensing boards
associated with changing cashiering procedures, form and
materials (various special funds).
3)Up to $140,000 in Information Technology expenditures due to
AB 1758
Page 2
licensing system modifications to affected (various special
funds).
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the bill. This bill would require initial
licensing fees for specified healing arts practitioners and
architects to be prorated on a monthly basis to ensure that
licensees are charged fees in a fair manner and are not
disadvantaged based on their birth month. However, the board
would be also be authorized to charge the licensee an
additional amount, up to a total of one-half of the initial
license fee, in order to cover the reasonable costs of issuing
the license. This bill is author-sponsored.
2)Author's statement. According to the author, "Various
sections of the [Business and Professions Code (BPC)] state
that licenses for acupuncturists, dentists, dental assistants,
dental hygienists, podiatrists, dispensing opticians,
osteopathic physicians and surgeons, speech-language
pathologists and audiologists, psychologists, physician
assistants, and veterinary technicians and veterinarians
expire at 12 midnight on the last day of the licensee's birth
month on the second year of their second term. These
licenses, with some exceptions, are required to pay a full
two-year renewal fee when this date occurs after they first
receive their licenses. In some cases, if a licensee's
birthday falls even one month after initial licensure, that
licensee is liable to pay a full renewal fee even if they have
just paid to receive their license? For professionals just
starting out, full two-year renewal fees that must be paid so
soon after licensure present a financial hardship."
3)Birth date renewal program. Many boards and bureaus under
Department of Consumer Affairs operate a birth date renewal
program, which is a program in which the license expires on
the birth date of the licensee or the last date of the birth
month of the licensee on the second year of a two-year term,
if not renewed. As many licensees apply for licensure at the
same time, perhaps because they graduate from schools during
specific times of the year, boards may be hit with a flood of
applications for initial licenses during those peak times.
Instead of basing license renewals on the date of issuance of
the initial license, which would result in the boards facing
AB 1758
Page 3
the same influx of applications year after year, most boards
renew licenses based on birth date, rather than the date the
license was issued, which allows the boards to spread out that
work throughout the year.
Under the birth date renewal program, an initial license period
can vary from just a few months up to 24 months, depending on
the applicant's birth month. For example, if an applicant was
born in January and applied for a license in January 2014,
that initial license would typically expire in the birth month
of the second year term, or January 2015. That license would
be effective for roughly 12 months. However, if that
applicant was born in December, that license would be
effective for nearly two years.
4)Boards that currently use pro rata license fee formulas. Some
boards, including the Dental Board of California (DBC),
California Board of Psychology, and California Veterinary
Medical Board (VMB), are required by statute to establish a
birth date renewal program that includes the establishment of
a pro rata formula for the payment of fees. Of those boards,
both the DBC and the VMB pro-rate initial license fees.
The VMB has a yearly pro rata formula in place, under which a
license that is valid for less than one year pays half the
initial license fee, and a license that is valid between one
to two years pays the full license fee. The DBC has a monthly
pro rata formula and provides an initial license fee chart to
an applicant that specifies what his or her initial licensee
fee will be based on how many months the license will be in
effect. Once those applications are processed, the license
fees are manually put into the system, which has already been
configured to meet DBC's needs.
Other boards have adopted, either formally or informally, a pro
rata formula for initial licenses. For example, California
Acupuncture Board (CAB) has adopted in regulations a formula
that prorates initial license fees on a monthly basis and that
has been in place for over a decade. According to CAB, its
pro rata formula has been operating well and has long been
integrated into their licensing program, and has not received
complaints relating to calculation of those fees from
licensees. Because CAB is included in this bill, this bill
would codify their existing practices.
AB 1758
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Eunie Linden / B., P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301 FN:
0003793