HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03191985 - 2.3 �•3
TO: ° BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
F� OM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa
DATE: March 14, 1985 C""'" "1
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION: AB 1159; AB 1053; SB 639; SB 580
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a position of support for AB 1159 (Bronzan); AB 1053 (Clute); SB 639 (Carpenter) ,
and SB 580 (Vuich).
BACKGROUND:
Several pieces of legislation have been introduced recently which, if enacted, could
have a substantial positive impact on the County. All four of these measures are part
of the Board's 1985 Legislative Program.
AB 1159 (Bronzan):
In 1984, Assemblyman Bronzan carried AB 3156, which passed the Legislature, but was vetoed
by the Governor. AB 3156 would have increased outpatient Medi-Cal reimbursements to
county hospitals, and other public or private hospitals, which serve a disproportionate
share of low-income patients.
Assemblyman Bronzan has now reintroduced essentially the same bill in the 1985 Session as
AB 1159. AB 1159 would provide that hospitals with a disproportionate share of low-income
patients between 31% and 50% would have their outpatient rates increased by 25%. Hospitals
with a disproportionate share of low-income patients in excess of 50% would have their
Medi-Cal outpatient rates increased by 50%.
The Health Services Department estimates, based on the formula in AB 1159, that they serve
approximately a 38% disproportionate share and, therefore, would be eligible for a 25%
increase in outpatient Medi-Cal reimbursement. This is estimated to increase the Depart-
ment' s Medi-Cal revenue by between $700,000 and $800,000 a year.
One of the items included in the Board's legislative package for 1985 was: "sponsor or
support legislation similar to AB 3156, which was vetoed by the Governor, which would
have increased outpatient Medi-Cal reimbursements to county hospitals".
In view of the reintroduction of AB 1159 and the fact that it meets the criteria included
in the Board's legislative program it is appropriate for the Board to support AB 1159.
AB 1053 (Clute) and SB 639 (Carpenter):
One item which has been of considerable concern to the Board, as well as County staff,
has been the issue of joint and several liability. AB 1053 and SB 639 have been intro-
duced. While there are minor variations in the two bills, County Counsel advises that
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: XYES SIGNATURE:
X _ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_ X _APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON March 19, 1985 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER A
Also REQUESTED Contra Costa County Employees Association (Local 1)
to support the County' s position on proposed legislation AB 1159,
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ��- > 1 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
OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator
CC: Auditor-Controller iATTESTED Mar h 19 1985
Assessor PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Health Services Director SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
(/ Y
M382/7-89 BY l.� DEPUTY
r
-2-
both of them substantially eliminate joint and several liability for local public
entities. The ability to remove the County from the "deep pockets" philosophy and
hold the County accountable only for that proportion of damages related to the
county's proportion of fault, should save the County substantial funds in future
settlements.
SB 580 (Vuich):
When the supplemental property tax roll was instituted in 1983, the law permitted the
Board of Supervisors to direct the Auditor to allocate to the County not to exceed
5% of the additional revenue generated by the supplemental roll for purposes of
administering the cost of the supplemental roll . The legislation, however, restricted
this provision to only the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 fiscal years. SB 580 would eliminate
those restrictions and allow the County to reimburse itself for the administrative
costs of the supplemental roll indefinitely. While we do not yet have a firm figure
from the Auditor-Controller regarding his costs in processing the supplemental roll ,
the Assessor estimates that his costs for the current fiscal year are $591 ,000. If
SB 580 is not passed, this revenue will not be received and the General Fund will
have to make up the cost of administering the supplemental roll .
Because of the substantial advantage to .the County, and the fact that each of these
bills is a part of the County's legislative program, it is our recommendation that the
Board strongly endorse each of these measures.
i