BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1893
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1893 (Stone and Eggman)
As Amended May 23, 2014
Majority vote
HEALTH 11-4 APPROPRIATIONS 11-5
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Pan, Ammiano, Chau, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, |
| |Bonilla, Bonta, Chesbro, | |Bradford, |
| |Lowenthal, Nazarian, | |Ian Calderon, Campos, |
| |Nestande, Ridley-Thomas, | |Eggman, Holden, Pan, |
| |Wieckowski | |Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, |
| | | |Weber |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Maienschein, Ch�vez, |Nays:|Bigelow, Donnelly, Jones, |
| |Patterson, Wagner | |Linder, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Requires that customers be given a free sharps
disposal container with the sale of 50 or more medical sharps
for self-injection. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that the sharps container shall be provided by the
sharps manufacturer at no cost and that the container have
adequate capacity to hold the number of sharps purchased.
2)Requires the container to include a label or insert that
provides directions for safe disposal of sharps waste, as
described, and a reference to the Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery's (CalRecycle) Internet Web site on
home-generated sharps waste disposals.
3)Encourages the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR),
Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC) to review the
department's practices for identifying puncture wounds caused
by sharps waste in non-health care occupations to determine
ways of encouraging more accurate reporting and collection of
needlestick injury data.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee:
1)Potential unknown minor cost pressure on the Medi-Cal program
AB 1893
Page 2
(General Fund/federal).
2)One-time cost pressure to DWC potentially exceeding $50,000 to
upgrade data collection systems and develop processes to
incorporate data elements that allow for collection of data on
puncture wounds caused by sharps in non-healthcare
occupations. The bill is permissive and does not require DWC
to collect this data. However, to the extent DWC does,
additional costs will be incurred.
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to
reduce cost to taxpayers, reduce needlestick injuries, and help
sharps users comply with current disposal laws by ensuring that
sharps users have proper disposal containers, and are more
informed of how to dispose of them. Even though it is illegal
under current law to place home-generated sharps into regular
trash or recycling, the author states that many sharps users
don't know the law and thousands of pounds of illegally disposed
sharps enter the municipal waste stream each year. The author
states that in order to help consumers more easily comply with
current law it would be useful and worthwhile to provide
consumers with a container and the CalRecycle Web site address
so that they can easily look up where to drop off their filled
containers. Additionally, the author states that this bill
seeks to improve data collection to ascertain the impact and
risk of non-healthcare needlestick injuries by encouraging the
DIR to collect data on the frequency of these injuries.
Amendments taken in appropriations specify that the sharps
manufacturer would be responsible for providing the sharps
container, free of charge, to a consumer who purchases 50 or
more sharps. This would include any technologies currently
defined as sharps, including lancets, pen needles, syringes, and
other devices.
Once used, these sharps are regulated medical waste. California
was one of the first states to address the problems of sharps
with the passage of SB 1305 (Figueroa), Chapter 64, Statutes of
2006, which prohibits the disposal of home-generated sharps in
California's landfills. Home-generated sharps waste is required
to be put into an approved sharps container before being
transported out of the home to an approved drop-off location or
via mail-back program. CalRecycle maintains the Facility
Information Toolbox Web site, which lists facilities where
AB 1893
Page 3
residents can take home-generated sharps such as hospitals,
pharmacies, or household hazardous waste facilities. The
definition of an approved sharps container is up to the local
enforcement agency or take-back program; some facilities will
accept sharps in any rigid plastic container but others can only
accept sharps in containers approved by the United States Food
and Drug Administration.
As regulated biohazard waste, these needles post a significant
health risk to the public due to potential blood-borne
pathogens, including human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B,
and hepatitis C. Any employee suffering a needlestick injury
should be seen by a physician to evaluate the need for
prophylactic treatment, which ranges in cost from $400 to $6,000
per person.
Municipalities and solid waste handlers support this bill,
stating that thousands of pounds of sharps are still being
disposed of in the waste stream each year, which presents a
dangerous dilemma for thousands of workers every day. They
argue statewide efforts to hold producers responsible for sharps
waste management costs are needed. Republic Services states
that although their facilities have the capacity to deal with
illegally disposed sharps, the costs (which are ultimately borne
by ratepayers) are driven up by the unlawful disposal of sharps.
The City of Sunnyvale writes that needlestick injuries drive up
health costs and also that major equipment downtime represents a
high cost to the plant. When sharps are found on the sorting
line, the entire line needs to be shut down to carefully find
and remove them.
Opponents, including many biotechnology firms, argue this bill
is premature without more data on the prevalence of needlestick
injuries in the waste workforce. They also argue that this bill
fails to recognize other effective sharps disposal technologies
currently on the market. Diabetes patient advocacy groups and
pharmaceutical manufacturers write that this bill could have
devastating consequences by interfering with a patient's ability
to purchase life-saving medication legally prescribed to them by
a physician by requiring patients to purchase a product
unrelated to their immediate health care needs.
Analysis Prepared by : Dharia McGrew / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097
AB 1893
Page 4
FN: 0003776