BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 59 Page 1 Date of Hearing: January 21, 2016 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Jimmy Gomez, Chair AB 59 (Waldron) - As Amended January 6, 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Policy |Health |Vote:|16 - 0 | |Committee: | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | |Judiciary | |7 - 0 | | | | | | | | | | | |-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: NoReimbursable: No SUMMARY: This bill authorizes the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Demonstration Project Act ("Laura's Law") for an additional five years, until January 1, 2022 and removes a duplicative reporting requirement. AB 59 Page 2 FISCAL EFFECT: Negligible state fiscal effect. COMMENTS: 1)Purpose. The author wishes to extend the sunset on local AOT programs, pointing to their recent expansion and success at assisting certain mentally ill individuals to be successfully treated on an outpatient basis. 2)Background. Laura's Law permits counties to provide court-ordered outpatient treatment services for people with serious mental illness. Enacted in 2002, Laura's Law was named for Laura Wilcox, a 19-year-old college student in Nevada County who was killed by a severely mentally ill man who was not adhering to prescribed mental health treatment. To implement an AOT order, a court must find that a person's recent history of hospitalizations or violent behavior, coupled with noncompliance with voluntary treatment, indicates the person is likely to become dangerous or gravely disabled without treatment. The intent of Laura's Law is to prevent a small number of individuals who meet narrow eligibility criteria from becoming gravely disabled or threatening. A county board of supervisors must pass a resolution in order to implement Laura's Law. To date, about nine counties have implemented Laura's Law in some form; counties have generally configured the implementation to align with local priorities. According to the author, additional counties are formally considering implementation. 3)Appropriation. Existing law authorizes counties to use Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and Local Revenue Fund monies to be used for the AOT program. Because these funds are AB 59 Page 3 continuously appropriated and the bill extends the authorization to pay for AOT services with these funds, this bill is tagged as an appropriation. However, the bill does not directly appropriate funds nor does it result in increased costs or funding for AOT. 4)Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by counties and emergency physicians. Disability Rights California opposes this bill, citing concern about AOT programs and a preference for expansion of voluntary services. Additional support and opposition was expressed to a previous version of this bill. 5)Prior Legislation. a) AB 1193 (Eggman) of 2015 required counties to hold a public hearing to consider implementing AOT, allowed specified judges to file petitions for an AOT order, and extended the sunset on AOT for five years. AB 1193 was held on the Suspense File of this committee. b) AB 2266 (Waldron, 2014) and AB 1265 (Conway, 2013) both increased the maximum period of imposed outpatient treatment under the AOT Demonstration Project from six months to one year. Both failed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. c) SB 535 (Steinberg and Correa), Chapter 288, Statutes of 2013 specified certain funds may can be used for AOT services. Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916) AB 59 Page 4 319-2081