HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02141984 - 1.25 .�'O: BOARD OF SUPE JISORS ,. .}
ett, County Administrator Contra
FROM: M. G. Win
9 Costa
DATE: February 6, 1984 County
SUBJECT: Legislation: SB 1346 (Petris) and
AB 2261 (Isenberg)
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a position in support for SB 1346 and AB 2261.
BACKGROUND:
SB 1346 by Senator Petris and AB 2261 by Assemblyman Isenberg are identical bills
designed to deal with the issue of involuntary transfers of nursing home patients who
become eligible for Medi-Cal. SB 1346 and AB 2261 do the following:
1 . Authorize the Director, State Department of Health Services, to impose
a moratorium on all admissions to any licensed health facility when the
Director determines that any condition in the facility presents a threat to
the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the facility.
2. Prohibit for facilities participating in the Medi-Cal Program, a transfer
from one facility to another solely because the resident changes from private
pay or Medicare to Medi-Cal . Presumably facilities not participating in the
Medi-Cal program could continue such transfers.
3. Require the Department to issue a regulation requiring all facilities to tell
applicants for admission whether the facility participates in the Medi-Cal
Program and, if so, under what circumstances the law and the facility's policy
permit a Medi-Cal recipient to be transferred involuntarily.
4. Prohibits any licensed health facility from discriminating among its residents
or in its admission policy on the basis of the source of payment.
5. Requires that a Medi-Cal patient in a long-term health care facility who is
transferred to another long-term facility be entitled to a three-day bed hold
at the patient's option.
These provisions appear to generally be consistent with the existing policy of the Board.
We would recommend amendments to item #2 to include all long-term health care facilities
rather than just those participating in the Medi-Cal program if this can be done legally,
and to impose some type of penalty for transferring a patient under these circumstances.
In addition, #4 may be drawn overly broadly and may have to be modified in order to make
the bill acceptable to large portions of the health care community. As written, it would
presumably prohibit any hospital or nursing home from refusing a Medi-Cal patient
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:-X_YES SIGNATURE: -�Q
X RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
X APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 14, 1 84 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT _ ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AYES: NOES: AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
County Administrator OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Acting Health Svcs. Director
CC: Legislative Delegation (via CAO) ATTESTED
CSAC J.R. OLSSON, COUN Y CLERK
Chair, Assembly Cori-ittee on Aging/Long Term Care AND EX OFFICIO CLERK OF THE BOARD
Chair, Senate Health & Welfare (via CAO) 2 5
M3e2/7-89 BY (- �� DEPUTY
Z-
admission. It is also unclear how this affects physicians since they in fact
do the admitting and caniinformally control a facility's percentage of Medi-Cal
patients. Overall , however, the bills, as introduced, deserve the support of the
Board of Supervisors.
I
t
-L26 V