CFILC POSITIONS OF SUPPORT & OPPOSITION ON LEGISLATION INTRODUCED IN 2009-2010(Last Updated August 17, 2010) Diversity:
HealthCare:
CFILC Sposored Legislation:
*BILLS INTRODUCED IN 2009 WITH FORMAL CFILC POSITIONS THAT REMAIN ACTIVE AS TWO-YEAR BILLS DIVERSITY
SB 110 (Liu) People with Disabilities: Victims of Crime Status:Active HEALTH CARE SystemCFILC Position: Support Description: This bill is similar to the single payer health care bill that CFILC has supported in the past when California was negotiating its own versions of health care reform legislation. Most recently, CFILC strongly supported SB 840 (Kuehl) of 2008, a single payer bill that passed both the Assembly and the Senate, but was vetoed by the Governor. SB 810 is latest version that was reactivated following the Federal Health Care Reform bill. It is designed to create a more efficient finance and delivery system to provide universal coverage and to stabilize health care spending. The Governor has threatened to veto any single payer bill that is sent to his office. Status: Active. BILLS SPONSORED BY CFILC FOR 2010 ACR 162 (Beall): Disability History Week Resolution This resolution was introduced to help begin that dialogue. It would encourage the public schools, institutions of higher education, state and local government agencies, and the public and private sectors to observe an annual Disability History Week by conducting appropriate events and activities. It includes numerous legislative findings and declarations in support of the need for such instruction and activities. Status: Passed by the Assembly and Senate. It has been chaptered by the Secretary of State and Resolution Chapter 75 of the Statutes of 2010. Senate Joint Resolution 35: Commemoration of the 20th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act Status: Active BILLS INTRODUCED IN 2010 WITH FORMAL POSITIONS OF SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION HEALTHCARE AB 2072 (Mendoza) Hearing Screening: Resources and ServicesCFILC Position: OPPOSE Description:AB 2072 is a very controversial bill in the deaf and hard of hearing community. The bill was originally introduced to require the parents of all newborns and infants diagnosed with a hearing loss to be provided specified information on communication options for newborns and infants who are diagnosed as deaf or hard of hearing. After reviewing the bill and unsuccessful efforts to negotiate with the author’s office, a number of national and state deaf and hard of hearing advocacy organizations voice their strong opposition to the bill. They argued that every infant and toddler identified as deaf and hard of hearing should have the opportunity to acquire English language skills through training in American Sign Language and that the information about other options that would be required to be provided by the bill moves in the opposite direction. They asserted that the term “communication and language options” is misleading and that picking one option over another would only rob the child of the ability and opportunity for full language acquisition. The opponents also believe that Californians who are deaf who want to communicate in sign language should be entitled to respect in their decision making. Finally, they opposed the provisions that would refer parents to audiologists. They claimed that audiologists are not the appropriate experts to advise parents and families about language acquisition because they are trained to measure and “treat” hearing loss by recommending hearing aids or cochlear implants. The opposition wants to preserve opportunities for deaf and hard of hearings infants and toddlers to acquire full language acquisition through visual language so that by the time the child starts kindergarten and 1st grade, they are ready to learn, graduate from high school, and enter post-secondary educational institutions or the workforce. The bill was later substantially amended to require the State Department of Education, rather than the Department of Health Care Services, to develop an unbiased, comprehensive, and evidence-based informational pamphlet for the parents of these newborns and infants. The pamphlet would advise the parents about visual and auditory communication and language options including, but not limited to, American Sign Language and Listening and Spoken Language. In an apparent effort to address concerns about audiologists an amendment was inserted to prevent these practitioners from giving advice out of the scope of their practice. However, these amendments did not satisfy the concerns of deaf and hard of hearing advocacy organizations. CFILC has joined them in sustaining a position of opposition to the bill. Status: ActiveAB 342 and SB 208 Section 1115 Waiver: Mandatory Medi-Cal Managed Care for Seniors and People with Disabilities Description: The State of California has applied for a Federal Medicaid waiver, known as a “Section 1115 Waiver” that would, subject to approval by the Federal government, authorize major structural reforms in the Medi-Cal Program. One of the major proposals is designed to reduce state costs and control the growth of Medi-Cal enrollments by mandating that all Medi-Cal eligible seniors and people with disabilities be enrolled into new and existing managed care plans. This would replace the current Medi-Cal fee-for-service system under which most people with disabilities receive health care. The mandatory enrollment of people with disabilities into managed care has been a proposal that has been circulating in the Capitol for many years. However, at the same time the data indicates that health care costs for senior and people with disabilities take a huge percentage of the total Medi-Cal budget and that caseloads are growing rapidly. Given these circumstance, the Legislature enacted legislation that would authorize the State to submit the waiver application if it can control costs and delivery the same access and quality of care to senior and people with disabilities. AB 342 and SB 208 are the two companion bills that would set forth the state statutory requirements for the implementation of the waiver, if it is approved by the Federal government. The final terms of the system may be part of the current state budget negotiations. CFILC has been monitoring this new development on the issue since late 2009 immediately after the Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) released two concept papers about the waiver, including its proposal for managed care for seniors and people with disabilities. The DHCS was required to establish various stakeholder advisory committees and convene public hearings to review the concept papers and finalize the specifics of the proposal. The review process has been completed and the waiver application that has already been submitted to the Federal government. However, there are numerous deficiencies and questionable assumptions and projections about the state’s ability to ensure access and quality of care, not the mention the capacity of managed care plans to absorb such a huge influx of new enrollees who have unique health care needs and need more medical attention than most other enrollees. Throughout this process, CFILC has collaborated with other disability rights advocacy organizations to build a coalition to make recommendations about the waiver application. The Disability Health Coalition played a major role and coalition members served on many of the stakeholder advisory committees, testified during public hearings, and submitted joint letters and a position paper that criticized certain portions of the DHCS proposal and made recommendations to protect the rights and health care needs of people with disabilities. The coalition has also taken a similar role with respect to AB 342 and SB 208. The authors of the bills have already incorporated many of the recommendations about the needs of people with disabilities, however there are a number of unresolved issues and the coalition has continued to submit sets of proposed amendments. In addition, coalition members have been in contact with the responsible Federal agency officials to share the previously identified concerns and recommendations. It is also possible that a legal strategy may be pursued to slow down the waiver review and approval process and require the DHCS to provide documentation and additional proof that mandatory managed care for people with disabilities will not deny them access to qualify care. Physical access to medical facilities and equipment and an option for enrollees to remain in fee-for-service care system if their managed care plans are unable to provide the same quality of care are other keys concerns. For more detailed information about CFILC’s advocacy efforts on this issue and more specifics about expressed concerns and recommendations, please go to our website’s Issue Brief on the Medi-Cal Waiver. It can be found under the “Issues” tab. There is also a link that will allow you to read the coalition’s position paper titled “Consumer Protections for Seniors and People with Disabilities on Medi-Cal Proposed for Mandatory Enrollment into Organized Delivery Systems.” Status: Active SB 880 (Yee): Public Safety: Snow Sport Helmets CFILC sought to amend the bill to allocate some or all of the fine proceeds for allocation for direct services to Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) survivors and their families under the existing California TBI Program. However, the author did not agree to those amendments, so CFILC will not change its position to one of SUPPORT. Status: Active. |
