HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05052015 - C.32RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ADOPT a "Support" position for a State Budget item related to the restoration of grant cuts and cost of living
adjustment for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and State Supplemental Payments (SSP) made by the State.
2. ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 474 (Brown), a bill that would require the State maximum for the State
Supplementary Program for the Aged, Blind and Disabled (SSP) grant for individual to be readjusted and increased
so that the SSP payment and federal Social Security Income (SSI) payment, when combined, equals a specified
percentage of the federal poverty level.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
At its April 2, 2015 meeting, the Legislation Committee considered the recommendation from the In-Home
Supportive Services (IHSS) Public Authority Advisory Committee to recommend a position of "Support" to the
Board of Supervisors on the restoration and COLA increase of SSI/SSP funding. (See Attachment 2.) The Legislation
Committee supported the recommendation from the IHSS Public Authority Advisory Committee, and recommends
that the Board of Supervisors support the funding in the State Budget.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/05/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
ABSENT:Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Lara DeLaney, (925)
335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors
on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 5, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: Stephanie L. Mello, Deputy
cc:
C. 32
To:Board of Supervisors
From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Date:May 5, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:State Prioritization of Supplemental Security Income and State Supplemental Payments Funding
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
Supplemental Security Income/State Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP): One of the key attributes of the Social
Security Act is the SSI/SSP combination program. The SSI portion of the program is a federally funded effort that
provides income for those aged 65 or older, those who are blind or those who are disabled. California
supplements the federal SSI payment with a State Supplementary Payment (SSP). Eligibility for both programs is
determined by the Social Security Administration using the federal poverty level (FPL) as eligibility threshold.
Benefits are in the form of cash assistance. About 1.3 million Californians receive SSI/SSP benefits. California's
State SSP is $156.40. When combined with the federal benefit of $733, an individual could receive a total benefit
of $889.40 with which to pay for housing, food, utilities, and transportation. In California, SSI recipients are
ineligible for CalFresh/SNAP (Food Stamps) assistance.
California once provided a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) on the total SSI/SSP amount. This COLA was
repealed in 2009. Since then, the state contributions to the SSI grant for individuals have declined from $233 a
month down to the federal minimum of $156 a month, a $77 a month, per person, reduction.
The issue of increasing the base grant for SSI/SSP and restore the COLA on the entire grant was considered at a
special informational hearing of the Assembly Aging and Human Services Committee on March 17. (See
Attachment 1.)
Regarding the state COLA issue as it relates to SSI/SSP grants, in order to help clarify how the state COLA was
applied historically (before it was eliminated beginning in state fiscal year 2010-11), when it was in effect, the
state COLA was required to be calculated annually based on the year-over-year change in the California
Necessities Index (CNI) The CNI reflects changes spending by low-income residents on food, clothing, fuel,
utilities, rent, and transportation in two high-cost areas of the state: LA and the SF Bay Area.
In contrast, the federal COLA is calculated based on the year-over-year change in the Consumer Price Index
(CPI), a national measure of the change in prices paid by urban consumers for a "market basket" of goods and
services. The California-specific CNI is typically larger than the national CPI.
Since there used to be two different COLAs - a state one and a federal one - the key question is how did they
interact when determining maximum SSI/SSP grant levels. Here is what state law required:
1. A state COLA was calculated based on the total SSI/SSP grant. Let's say it works out to $30 per month for an
individual grant.
2. The state then took into account the amount of the federal SSI COLA. Let's say the SSI COLA comes to $12
per month for an individual grant.
3. The state then subtracted the federal SSI COLA (#2) from the state COLA on the full SSI/SSP grant (#1) in
order to determine the state's share of the total grant increase. In this case it would be $30 - $12 = $18 (the state's
share of the monthly increase for an individual grant).
The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) suggests that one choice for state policymakers would be to apply a state
COLA solely to the state's SSP portion of the grant, rather than to the entire SSI/SSP grant. Applying the state
COLA solely to the SSP grant would require a state law change since current law does not appear to authorize the
state to base its adjustment on the SSP grant alone. However, applying a state COLA solely to the SSP portion
would cost the state less simply based on the way the math works out.
For additional information about the SSI/SSP cash grants, see Attachment 3, the LAO report of March 11, 2015.
A bill related to this subject is currently making its way through the Legislature: AB 474 (Brown). See Attachment
4. This bill would requires the State maximum for the State Supplementary Program for the Aged, Blind and
Disabled (SSP) grant for individual to be readjusted and increased so that the SSP payment and federal Social
Security Income (SSI) payment, when combined, equals a specified percentage of the federal poverty level. Staff
Security Income (SSI) payment, when combined, equals a specified percentage of the federal poverty level. Staff
recommends that the Board of Supervisors also consider adopting a position of "Support" on this bill. AB 474 will
be heard in Assembly Human Services Committee on 4/28/15.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Contra Costa County would not have a position on the bill.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Background Paper for Hearing
Attachment 2: Letter from IHSS PA AC
Attachment 3: LAO Overview
Attachment 4: AB 474 (Brown)
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 2
Presented to:
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1
On Health and Human Services
Hon. Tony Thurmond, Chair
Overview of SSI/SSP Cash
Grants—2000-01 to 2015-16
L E G I S L A T I V E A N A L Y S T ’ S O F F I C E
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
Attachment 3
1LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;What Is SSI/SSP? The Supplemental Security Income/State
Supplementary Payment (SSI/SSP) program provides cash
grants to low-income individuals.
;How Is SSI/SSP Funded? The state’s General Fund provides
the SSP portion of the grant while federal funds pay for the SSI
portion of the grant.
;Who Receives SSI/SSP? Low-income aged, blind, and
disabled individuals are eligible to receive SSI/SSP grants.
Eligibility Requires Low Income and Limited Assets.
Generally, to be eligible for the program, an applicant’s
income must be at or below the amount of the SSI/SSP
monthly grant. Additionally, an individual is usually ineligible
for SSI/SSP if he or she has assets in excess of $2,000
($3,000 for couples).
Eligibility Also Requires Age of at Least 65 and/or
Disability Status. To qualify for SSI/SSP on the basis of
age, an individual must be age 65 or older. To be eligible
for the grant based on disability (including blindness), an
applicant must demonstrate that he or she is unable to work
because of a permanent or long-term impairment.
;Eligibility of SSI/SSP Recipients for Other Public
Assistance Programs.
SSI/SSP Recipients Ineligible for CalFresh Benefits.
The SSI/SSP recipients are not eligible for CalFresh
benefits because a cash amount is included in the SSP
benefit in lieu of CalFresh. This arrangement is known as
the “supplemental nutrition assistance program cash-out
program.”
SSI/SSP Recipients Automatically Enrolled in Medi-Cal.
Individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and receive
Background on SSI/SSP
Attachment 3
2LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
SSI/SSP cash assistance are automatically enrolled in
Medi-Cal—California’s version of the state-federal Medicaid
health program.
;How Much Do Individuals and Couples Receive? The grant
level that individuals and couples receive varies based on
existing income and falling into a specific eligibility category.
There are 26 eligibility categories, each with a unique maximum
grant level. The figure below compares maximum SSI/SSP grant
levels in 2000-01 versus 2015-16 (as proposed). The grant levels
are also shown as a percentage of the federal poverty level
(FPL). The FPL is adjusted annually for inflation.
SSI/SSP Grants: Then and Now
2000-01
2015-16
Proposed
Maximum Grant—Individualsa
SSI $531 $744
SSP 181 156
To tals $712 $900
Percent of FPL 102.3%91.8%
Maximum Grant—Couplesa
SSI $796 $1,116
SSP 469 396
To tals $1,265 $1,512
Percent of FPL 134.9%113.9%
a Reflects maximum grant for an aged or disabled adult—either an individual or a couple—residing
independently.
FPL = federal poverty level.
;Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLAs). The federal government
provides an annual COLA—based on the Consumer Price
Index—for the SSI portion of the grant every January. In
the past, the state has also provided a COLA based on the
California Necessities Index (CNI). The state-funded COLA can
be applied to the SSP portion of the grant or to the total SSI/SSP
grant. The last state-funded COLA was provided in April 2005.
Background on SSI/SSP (Continued)
Attachment 3
3LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;How Many Californians Receive SSI/SSP?
SSI/SSP Caseload: Then and Now
2000-01
2015-16
Estimated
Percentage
Change
Aged 333,593 359,885 7.9%
Blind 21,815 18,426 -15.5
Disabled 726,690 932,666 28.3
Totals 1,082,098 1,310,977 21.2%
;What Are the Total Expenditures for SSI/SSP?
SSI/SSP Expenditures: Then and Now
(Dollars in Millions)
2000-01
Actual
2015-16
Proposed Growth
General Fund $2,365 $2,834 19.8%
Federal funds 4,135 7,402 79.0
Totals $6,500 $10,236 57.5%
SSI/SSP Caseload and Funding
Attachment 3
4LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;Reduced the SSP Portion of the Grant for Individuals and
Couples.
100
200
300
400
500
$600
Individuals
Couples
01-02 03-04 05-0600-01 02-03 04-05 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15 15-16
a
a Proposed
Maximum SSP Grant
Graphic Sign Off
Secretary
Analyst
MPA
Deputy
ARTWORK #150172
Template_Handout w_Title.ait
Maximum SSP Grant for Individuals and Couples Cannot
Be Reduced Further. The state is required to maintain its
March 1983 SSP grant levels in order to continue to receive
federal Medicaid funding. For individuals, the state reduced
the SSP grant to this minimum level in 2011-12. For couples,
this occurred in 2009-10.
State Has Made Changes to SSI/SSP Grants
to Achieve Budgetary Savings Since 2000-01
Attachment 3
5LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;Did Not Provide State-Funded COLA in Most Years. Since
2000-01, the state COLA was not provided in most years.
;Did Not Pass Through Federal COLA. Since 2000-01, the
state did not pass through the federal COLA to grant recipients
in 2005-06. This means that the state reduced the SSP portion
of the grant by an amount equivalent to the federal COLA
provided for the SSI portion of the grant. This causes the total
SSI/SSP grant to remain at the same level, despite the federal
COLA.
State Has Made Changes to SSI/SSP Grants
to Achieve Budgetary Savings Since 2000-01
(Continued)
State-Funded COLAs Since 2000-01
Year Percentage
2000-01 (January)2.96%
2001-02 (January)5.31
2002-03 (June)3.74
2003-04 —
2004-05 (April)2.75
2005-06 —
2006-07 —
2007-08 —
2008-09 —
2009-10 —
2010-11 —
2011-12 —
2012-13 —
2013-14 —
2014-15 —
2015-16 —
COLA = cost-of-living adjustment.
Attachment 3
6LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;. . . Maximum SSI/SSP Grants for Individuals and Couples
Would Be Significantly Higher in 2015-16.
2015-16 Maximum Grant Levels
Proposed
If State Had Continued
SSP COLAs Since 2005-06
Maximum Grant—Individualsa
SSI $744 $744
SSP 156 308
To tals $900 $1,052
Percent of FPL 91.8%107.3%
Maximum Grant—Couplesa
SSI $1,116 $1,116
SSP 396 752
To tals $1,512 $1,868
Percent of FPL 113.9%140.7%
a Reflects maximum grant for an aged or disabled adult—an individual or a couple —residing independently.
COLA = cost-of-living adjustment and FPL = federal poverty level.
If the State Had Continued SSP COLAs on
2005-06 Grant Levels, Then. . .
Attachment 3
7LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE
March 11, 2015
LAO
70 YEARS OF SERVICE
;Increase SSP Portion of Grant. There are several options for
increasing the SSP portion of the grant. For example:
Grant Increase Could Be Provided Solely to Individuals
to Increase Grant to 100 Percent of FPL. An increase
in the SSP portion of the grant could be provided solely
to individuals—for whom the maximum grant level would
otherwise be below FPL in 2015-16. This would increase the
maximum SSP grant for individuals residing independently by
$81, thereby increasing the total SSI/SSP grant from $900 to
$981.
Grant Increase Could Provide an Increase Equivalent
to Cumulative Amount of SSP COLAs Not Provided
Since 2005-06. As we note, such an increase would cause
the maximum grant for individuals to be $1,052 and the
maximum grant for couples to be $1,868 in 2015-16.
Grant Increase Could Be Provided Based on Amount of
Available of Funding. A grant increase could be provided
of an amount that backs into available funding. With more
funding available, the grants could be increased by a greater
amount.
;Provide State-Funded COLA Going Forward. The state could
provide a state-funded COLA for the SSP portion of the grant
or for the total SSI/SSP grant. For 2015-16, we estimate that a
state-funded COLA provided in January—based on a CNI of
3.06 percent—would cost about $40 million General Fund if
applied only to the SSP portion of the grant. The department
reports that a state-funded COLA applied to the total SSI/SSP
grant would cost about $120 million General Fund, assuming
January implementation.
Options for Restoring SSI/SSP Grants
Attachment 3
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 7, 2015
california legislature—2015–16 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 474
Introduced by Assembly Member Brown Members Brown and
Thurmond
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Cristina Garcia)
(Principal coauthor: Senator Liu)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Chu)
February 23, 2015
An act to amend Section 1432 of the Health and Safety Code, relating
to health facilities. An act to add Section 12201.02 to the Welfare and
Institutions Code, relating to public social services, and making an
appropriation therefor.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 474, as amended, Brown. Health facilities: antiretaliation
protections. Public social services: SSI/SSP.
Existing law provides for the State Supplementary Program for the
Aged, Blind and Disabled (SSP), which requires the State Department
of Social Services to contract with the United States Secretary of Health
and Human Services to make payments to SSP recipients to supplement
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments made available pursuant
to the federal Social Security Act.
Under existing law, benefit payments under the SSP are calculated
by establishing the maximum level of nonexempt income and federal
SSI and state SSP benefits for each category of eligible recipient. The
state SSP payment is the amount, when added to the nonexempt income
and SSI benefits available to the recipient, which would be required to
provide the maximum benefit payment.
98
This bill, for the 2015–16 fiscal year, and annually thereafter, would
require the state maximum SSP grant for individuals to be readjusted
and increased so that the state SSP payment and federal SSI payment,
when combined, equal 112% of the federal poverty level. By increasing
the amount of SSP payments, which are expended from a continuously
appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation.
Existing law prohibits a licensee of a long-term health care facility
from discriminating or retaliating in any manner against a complainant,
or a patient or employee in its facility, based on the presentation of a
grievance or complaint or activities related to a specified investigation
or proceeding at the facility. Existing law makes the willful violation
of these provisions punishable as a crime.
This bill would expand the antiretaliation protections to apply to all
health care workers of a long-term health care facility. The bill would
increase the civil penalties and criminal penalties that apply to licensees
who violate the provisions. The bill would also specify that a
complainant who has been discriminated against may recover attorney’s
fees and other legal costs.
Because this bill would expand the scope of a crime, it would impose
a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority 2⁄3. Appropriation: no yes. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 12201.02 is added to the Welfare and
line 2 Institutions Code, to read:
line 3 12201.02. Notwithstanding any other law, for the 2015–16
line 4 fiscal year, and annually thereafter, the state maximum SSP grant
line 5 for individuals shall be readjusted and increased so that the state
line 6 SSP payment and federal SSI payment, when combined, shall equal
line 7 112 percent of the federal poverty level.
line 8 SECTION 1. Section 1432 of the Health and Safety Code is
line 9 amended to read:
98
— 2 —AB 474
line 1 1432. (a) (1) A licensee shall not discriminate or retaliate in
line 2 any manner against a complainant, patient, employee, member of
line 3 the medical staff, or any other health care worker of the long-term
line 4 health care facility, on the basis or for the reason that the person
line 5 has done either of the following:
line 6 (A) Presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility,
line 7 to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the
line 8 facility or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other
line 9 governmental entity.
line 10 (B) Initiated, participated, or cooperated in an investigation or
line 11 administrative proceeding related to the quality of care, services,
line 12 or conditions at the facility that is carried out by an entity or agency
line 13 responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility or its medical
line 14 staff, or any other governmental entity.
line 15 (2) An entity that owns or operates a long-term health care
line 16 facility shall not discriminate or retaliate against a person because
line 17 that person has taken an action described in this subdivision.
line 18 (3) A violation of this section is subject to a civil penalty of not
line 19 more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). The civil penalty
line 20 shall be assessed and recovered through the same administrative
line 21 process set forth in Chapter 2.4 (commencing with Section 1417).
line 22 (b) An attempt to expel a patient from a long-term health care
line 23 facility, or any type of discriminatory treatment of a patient by
line 24 whom, or upon whose behalf, a grievance or complaint has been
line 25 submitted, directly or indirectly, to a governmental entity or
line 26 received by a long-term health care facility administrator or any
line 27 proceeding instituted under or related to this chapter within 180
line 28 days of the filing of the complaint or the institution of the action,
line 29 shall raise a rebuttable presumption that the action was taken by
line 30 the licensee in retaliation for the filing of the complaint.
line 31 (c) (1) An attempt to terminate the employment, or other
line 32 discriminatory treatment, of an employee, complainant, patient,
line 33 member of the medical staff, or any other health care worker who
line 34 has presented a grievance or complaint or has initiated, participated,
line 35 or cooperated in an investigation or proceeding of a governmental
line 36 entity as specified in subdivision (a), where the facility or licensee
line 37 had knowledge of the employee, complainant, patient, member of
line 38 the medical staff, or any other health care worker’s initiation,
line 39 participation, or cooperation, shall raise a rebuttable presumption
line 40 that the action was taken by the licensee in retaliation if it occurs
98
AB 474— 3 —
line 1 within 120 days of the filing of the grievance or complaint, or the
line 2 institution of the action.
line 3 (2) For purposes of this section, discriminatory treatment of an
line 4 employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
line 5 worker includes, but is not limited to, discharge, demotion,
line 6 suspension, or an unfavorable change in, or breach of, the terms
line 7 or conditions of a contract, employment, or privileges of the
line 8 employee, member of the medical staff, or any other health care
line 9 worker of the health care facility, or the threat of any of these
line 10 actions.
line 11 (d) Presumptions provided for in subdivisions (b) and (c) are
line 12 presumptions affecting the burden of producing evidence as
line 13 provided in Section 603 of the Evidence Code.
line 14 (e) If the civil penalty assessed is one thousand dollars ($1,000)
line 15 or less, the violation shall be issued and enforced in the same
line 16 manner as a class “B” violation, except in no case shall the penalty
line 17 be trebled. If the civil penalty assessed is in excess of one thousand
line 18 dollars ($1,000), the violation shall be issued and enforced in the
line 19 same manner as a class “A” violation, except in no case shall the
line 20 penalty be trebled.
line 21 (f) A person who willfully violates this section is guilty of an
line 22 infraction punishable by a fine of not more than twenty thousand
line 23 dollars ($20,000).
line 24 (g) A licensee who violates this section is subject to a civil
line 25 penalty or a criminal fine, but not both.
line 26 (h) A long-term health care facility shall prominently post in
line 27 a facility location accessible to staff, patients, and visitors written
line 28 notice of the right to request an inspection pursuant to Section
line 29 1419, the procedure for doing so, including the right to remain
line 30 anonymous, and the prohibition against retaliation.
line 31 (i) (1) An employee who has been discriminated against in
line 32 employment pursuant to this section is entitled to reinstatement,
line 33 reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts
line 34 of the employer, and the legal costs associated with pursuing the
line 35 case, or to any remedy deemed warranted by the court pursuant to
line 36 this chapter or any other applicable provision of statutory or
line 37 common law.
line 38 (2) A health care worker who has been discriminated against
line 39 pursuant to this section is entitled to reinstatement, reimbursement
line 40 for lost income, and the legal costs associated with pursuing the
98
— 4 —AB 474
line 1 case, or to any remedy deemed warranted by the court pursuant to
line 2 this chapter or any other applicable provision of statutory or
line 3 common law.
line 4 (3) A member of the medical staff who has been discriminated
line 5 against pursuant to this section is entitled to reinstatement,
line 6 reimbursement for lost income resulting from a change in the terms
line 7 or conditions of his or her privileges caused by the acts of the
line 8 facility or the entity that owns or operates the facility or any other
line 9 health facility that is owned or operated by that entity, and the
line 10 legal costs associated with pursuing the case, or to any remedy
line 11 deemed warranted by the court pursuant to this chapter or any
line 12 other applicable provision of statutory or common law.
line 13 (4) For purposes of this subdivision, “legal costs” means
line 14 attorney’s fees, litigation costs, and expert witness fees incurred
line 15 in the litigation.
line 16 (j) For purposes of this section, “long-term health care facility”
line 17 means a facility defined under Section 1418, including, but not
line 18 limited to, the facility’s administrative personnel, employees,
line 19 boards, and committees of the board, and medical staff.
line 20 (k) For purposes of this section, “complainant” means a person
line 21 who has filed a complaint, as defined in Section 1420.
line 22 (l) This section does not abrogate or limit any other theory of
line 23 liability or remedy otherwise available at law.
line 24 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
line 25 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
line 26 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
line 27 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
line 28 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
line 29 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
line 30 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
line 31 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
line 32 Constitution.
O
98
AB 474— 5 —