HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06251985 - 1.59 p �� .9
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS +
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Contra
Costa
DATE: June 17, 1985 County
SUBJECT: LEGISLATION - AB 2265 (JOHNSON) :
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt a position of support for AB 2265 by Assemblyman Ross Johnson, the
Family Health Initiative Program.
BACKGROUND:
AB 2265 is, in effect, a modified Public Health Block Grant. It
consolidates five public health programs into a single coordinated family
health program to be administered at the local level beginning in January,
1986. The bill establishes a minimum baseline funding, contains funding
for county administration of the program and provides counties with the
flexibility to transfer funds among the programs.
For additional background information, see the attached summary from the
State Department of Health Services of AB 2265.
The County Supervisors Association of California and California Conference
of Local Health Officers both endorse AB 2265. Dr. Wendel Brunner,
Assistant Health Services Director for Public Health, recommends that the
Board support AB 2265. Since the bill accomplishes a number of the
administrative simplifications and increase local decision-making which the
Board has sought in the past, this office endorses the recommendation to
support AB 2265.
AB 2265 is pending hearing in the Assembly Health Committee.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES) e4(" 4 . V_�&
ACTION OF BOARD ON J IMA 7_S_ 1Q85 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.
Health Services Director 0"41
��� /y?�
cc: Dr. Wendel Brunner ATTESTED
Assemblyman Ross Johnson PHI ATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
Assemblyman Phil Isenberg SU RVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CSAC (Roger King)
M382/7-88 BY DEPUTY
e
FAMILY HEALTH INITIATIVE PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
The Family Health Initiative Program proposes the following:
o Consolidation of five public health programs into a single coordinated State
Family Health Program. The programs are: `
o Maternal and Child Health
o Family Planning
o Immunization Assistance
o Children's Dental Disease Prevention
o Preventive Health Care for the Aging
o Transfer to counties/local jurisdictions on January 1 , 1986 those components of
the above programs which are more rationally managed at the county level.
'Programs to be transferred are:
o Community-Based Comprehensive Perinatal Services Projects
o MCH demonstration projects which are = of statewide or area
significance
o Family Planning Contraceptive and Sterilization Projects
o Family Planning Information and Education Projects which are not of
statewide or area significance
o Children's Dental Disease Prevention Projects not currently contracted
with county health departments
_ 1 _
REQUIREMENTS
o. Counties shall contract with the same non-county providers at the same funding
level in the above transferred programs for the first two years of the Family
Health Initiative Program.
o Counties shall continue their current programs in MCH family planning,
immunization assistance, children's dental disease prevention, and preventive
health care for the aging for at least two years.
o If a county at the time of the transfer does not have one of the above programs,
it shall not be required to initiate one.
o At the end of two years, counties would have the flexibility to shift funds among
the listed programs to address local needs as determined by the county following
a public hearing. Certain restrictions dictated by State and Federal law would
apply, e.g. , Federal MCH Block funds cannot be shifted to preventive health for
the aging.
o Counties would be required to continue the same level of county support for the
above programs as existed at the time of the transfer (FY 1985-86). If state
support is reduced the county's required support would be reduced proportionally.
If the level of state support increases, the county would not be required to
increase county support above the level existing at the time of transfer.
o Counties shall maintain standards for the programs as established by the state in
consultation with county staff.
2 -
o Counties shall submit an annual proposal for funds received in the Family Health
Program.
o Counties shall submit reports necessary to satisfy Federal and State require-
ments. Report content and frequency shall be developed jointly by state and
county staffs and shall be minimized to reduce administrative cost.
FISCAL OVERVIEW
o Funds transferred to the counties included in this proposal for FY 1985-86:
o funds currently received by counties in the $16.2 million
programs (FY 1984-85)
o funds currently received by other providers to $15.0 million
be transferred on Jan. 1 , 1986 (Jan thru June 1986)
o augmentation of county health departments for $ 1.2 million
preparation for transfer and county community
perinatal program beginning July 1 , 1985
o augmentation of Community-Based Comprehensive $ 2.0 million
Perinatal Services Program beginning July 1 , -1985
o salary savings from state staff reductions $ 1.6 million
beginning January 1 , 1986
o additional funds for the Family Planning $ 4.75 million
program beginning July 1 , 1985
o additional funds for other programs in Family $ 1.25 million
Health Initiative beginning July 1 , 1985
o Counties will receive an additional $24.5 million in local assistance funds in
FY 1985-86. Counties would be required to subcontract approximately $15-16
million of that amount to those agencies within the county currently receiving
state funding for programs contained within the Initiative.
- 3 -
o A reasonable percentage of the remaining increase of approximately $9 million
could be used by counties for administrative costs incurred by the county with
the acceptance of the management of the transferred programs.
o Funds are proposed to be distributed to counties as follows:
o base amount is based on the funds received in FY 1984-85 in programs to be
managed by counties in the Family Health Initiative (includes funds received
currently by counties and other providers).
o augmentation to county health departments for administration of transferred
programs and county community perinatal health will be based on a formula
developed jointly by state staff and county MCAH directors using population
and perinatal indicators. This augmentation will be added to the base amount
and will be continued as a part of the base in subsequent years.
o augmentation of the Community-Based Comprehensive Perinatal Services programs
beginning in FY 1985-86 will be distributed to those counties into which the
new funding has been awarded and includes both county health department and
non-profit agency projects within the county.
o salary savings available January 1 , 1986 as a result of state staff reductions
shall be distributed in a manner to achieve an equal per capita distribution
of total Family Health Initiative program funds among local health
jurisdictions.
o additional funds for Family Planning and other Family Health Programs
available July 1 , 1985 shall be distributed in a manner to achieve an equal
4
0
per capita distribution of total Family Health Initiative program funds among
local health jurisdictions.
o Funds will be provided to counties as grant awards and will be paid prospectively
to counties monthly in amounts nearly equal to one another.
STATE ROLE
o The State will be responsible for administration of those programs of statewide
and area significance which are more reasonably managed at the State level such
as data, training, research, demonstration, and regionalization projects.
o The State will be responsible for review of county proposals, development of
standards, technical assistance and consultation, and monitoring of county Family
Health Initiative Programs.
o The State will continue a leadership role in addressing the needs and problems in
f amily health.
_ 5 _