BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 299
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 6, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
299 (Brown) - As Amended April 23, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Health |Vote:|19 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill requires the California Department of Public Health
(CDPH) to develop a submersion incident form for nonfatal and
fatal drowning events, and specifies data elements to be
AB 299
Page 2
collected.
It also requires first responders to complete the form for every
incident and submit the form to local health departments, who in
turn must submit data to CDPH, and requires local and state
health departments to compile and distribute statistical
information on their website annually.
FISCAL EFFECT:
1)Potential one-time GF costs to CDPH for program development
and to build a data collection system. There are numerous ways
to construct such a system, but as the data collection is an
ongoing requirement, a web-based system that allows local
public health departments to upload data in a standard format
would likely be an efficient solution. Depending on the
design, this could cost in excess of $150,000 GF.
Alternatively, CDPH could rely on manual form submittal and
aggregation, but this would have higher ongoing costs and
would not be cost-efficient.
2)Minor ongoing GF costs to CDPH to compile, analyze and post
information, and to maintain the database.
3)There is a potential for state-reimbursable mandated costs for
local health departments, but the total number of reports is
likely to be small and dispersed among counties, so the
likelihood of mandate claims is almost negligible. Staff
estimates estimated around 1,300 reports per year statewide
with full compliance, with total costs in the thousands of
dollars.
4)Local public and private first responders will incur minor
AB 299
Page 3
additional costs for data collection, but these costs are not
reimbursable.
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, this bill seeks to gather
uniform data on drowning and nonfatal-drowning events that
would be submitted to the county and state for the use of
drowning prevention education programs. While the death
certificate filled out when a drowning results in a fatality
provides some data on these events, no such data is gathered
for near-drowning events. It is at the discretion of local
municipalities to create a drowning report form and gather
data, and most do not gather such data. The information
gathered may vary from county to county and among those that
do gather this data, however, the type of information gathered
is inconsistent. The author asserts that this data is
necessary for policymakers to craft tailored programs to
prevent the unnecessary loss of life. Drowning is the number
one cause of death for toddlers.
2)Staff Comments. While it is clear data is useful for
understanding why and how often near-drowning incidents occur,
the value of this magnitude of data collection is unclear.
Whenever data is collected, there is a cost added to the
activity. It may be the case, but it is unclear that the
benefit outweighs the overall cost of this data collection.
Staff notes the following issues for consideration:
a) To what end? Data is best collected when it is
actionable and can inform practice. Will the data be used
for targeted interventions in all the places it is
collected? Local priorities may differ. Unless data
collection informs local practice, the necessity of
collecting local data in all jurisdictions is questionable.
AB 299
Page 4
b) Geography. Does all the data need to be collected over
the entire state, or could collection in a smaller
geography provide valuable information that could inform
practice statewide? The circumstances surrounding
near-drownings in pools, for example, may not vary
significantly from one location to another. The CDC
indicates, for example, lack of supervision, lack of
barriers, failure to wear life jackets, and alcohol use are
known risk factors. Mandating the range of data collection
in this bill statewide is only necessary if data in one
locale differ substantially from data in another locale.
This may indeed be the case, but should be justified.
c) Frequency. In general, the periodicity with which data
is reported should be as infrequent as possible to minimize
workload. Some surveys are done on a biennial basis, for
example, and provide a useful snapshot without the ongoing
burden of data collection. Is there a clear necessity to
collect data on an ongoing basis, and aggregate and report
on a quarterly basis?
d) Singling out one type of injury. There does not appear
to be precedent for this type of data collection by first
responders for public health purposes. Is near-drowning
the only condition for which data collection is imperative?
Does similar logic apply to falls, gun injuries, or severe
burns, for example?
Analysis Prepared by:Lisa Murawski / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 299
Page 5