Bills in the California State Legislature Related to Health IT
Bills in the California State Legislature Related to Health IT Helping California Clinicians Transform Health Care
The California State Legislature Basics • 120 Members – 80 Assemblymembers and 40 Senators • Heavily Democratic: – Assembly: 52 D, 28 R – Senate: 25 D, 14 R (1 vacancy)
• One of the only full-time State Legislatures in the country (JanuarySeptember).
Historical Perspective
Historical Interest in Health IT is Minimal • Predominantly a federal issue: – CMS regulations. – Bulk of incentive money was paid under Medicare. – REC program bypassed the state.
• Legislature authorized the Medi-Cal EHR Incentive Program in 2010. • Several informational hearings.
Senate Bill 850 (Leno, 2011) • SB 850 required EHRs to “Automatically record and preserve any change or deletion of any electronically stored medical information.” • Sponsored by the California Consumer Attorneys. • Sponsor cited a case where it was alleged that a physician tried to change an EHR to cover malpractice. • Duplicative of federal law and regulation.
Assembly Bill 2059 (Muratsuchi, 2014) • AB 2059 would have required “a health care provider to provide an electronic copy of an electronic medical record or electronic health record, when an electronic copy is requested, if the medical record exists in digital or electronic format and the medical record can be delivered electronically.” • Sponsored by the California Consumer Attorneys.
2014 Legislative Session • Authorized and funded the Medi-Cal Technical Assistance Program (aka “90/10”). • Legislature allocated $3.75 million to draw down a 9x federal match ($33.75 million, or $37.5 million total). • REC-like services to providers with practices that are > 30% Medi-Cal.
2015-16 Legislative Session
The Obvious Bills • AB 791 (Cooley): Would have required the State HIT Plan to include information about Advance Health Care Directives (2-year bill). • AB 1337 (Linder): Modified version of AB 2059, with the same sponsor. • SB 19 (Wolk): Would create an electronic statewide POLST registry. • SB 289 (Mitchell): Would require health plans to reimburse providers for telehealth visits.
The Not-So-Obvious Bills • SB 319 (Beall): Related to the disclosure of health information about foster youth to public health nurses.
• SB 671 (Hill): Requires pharmacists to communicate with physicians when they substitute a biosimilar for an innovator biologic product.
Out of Left Field: SB 676 • SB 676 is intended to address the issue of “Revenge Porn,” but contained language making the following illegal: • “A person who intentionally distributes another person’s personal identifying information associated with an image of an intimate body part of that other person without the consent of the other person.”
… about that Medi-Cal Technical Assistance Program • We’re still waiting. • DHCS released a draft RFA for comment in January. Responses to those comments were published in March. • All of the federal dollars for the program are still sitting on the table.
Message Points • Health IT undergirds all of health reform and delivery system reforms (ACOs, medical homes, etc.) • Moving providers to EHR is a “triple win” for the State of California: – Once when federal money flows in through provider incentives; – Again when those incentives are taxed; and – A third time when providers become more efficient.
• The State of California already goes above and beyond federal requirements for privacy and security of information.
Contact • David Ford, Interim Executive Director: 916730-7671 or [email protected]. • DeeAnne McCallin, REC Director: 510-3023364 or [email protected]. • www.calhipso.org.
The California State Legislature Basics • 120 Members – 80 Assemblymembers and 40 Senators • Heavily Democratic: – Assembly: 52 D, 28 R – Senate: 25 D, 14 R (1 vacancy)
• One of the only full-time State Legislatures in the country (JanuarySeptember).
Historical Perspective
Historical Interest in Health IT is Minimal • Predominantly a federal issue: – CMS regulations. – Bulk of incentive money was paid under Medicare. – REC program bypassed the state.
• Legislature authorized the Medi-Cal EHR Incentive Program in 2010. • Several informational hearings.
Senate Bill 850 (Leno, 2011) • SB 850 required EHRs to “Automatically record and preserve any change or deletion of any electronically stored medical information.” • Sponsored by the California Consumer Attorneys. • Sponsor cited a case where it was alleged that a physician tried to change an EHR to cover malpractice. • Duplicative of federal law and regulation.
Assembly Bill 2059 (Muratsuchi, 2014) • AB 2059 would have required “a health care provider to provide an electronic copy of an electronic medical record or electronic health record, when an electronic copy is requested, if the medical record exists in digital or electronic format and the medical record can be delivered electronically.” • Sponsored by the California Consumer Attorneys.
2014 Legislative Session • Authorized and funded the Medi-Cal Technical Assistance Program (aka “90/10”). • Legislature allocated $3.75 million to draw down a 9x federal match ($33.75 million, or $37.5 million total). • REC-like services to providers with practices that are > 30% Medi-Cal.
2015-16 Legislative Session
The Obvious Bills • AB 791 (Cooley): Would have required the State HIT Plan to include information about Advance Health Care Directives (2-year bill). • AB 1337 (Linder): Modified version of AB 2059, with the same sponsor. • SB 19 (Wolk): Would create an electronic statewide POLST registry. • SB 289 (Mitchell): Would require health plans to reimburse providers for telehealth visits.
The Not-So-Obvious Bills • SB 319 (Beall): Related to the disclosure of health information about foster youth to public health nurses.
• SB 671 (Hill): Requires pharmacists to communicate with physicians when they substitute a biosimilar for an innovator biologic product.
Out of Left Field: SB 676 • SB 676 is intended to address the issue of “Revenge Porn,” but contained language making the following illegal: • “A person who intentionally distributes another person’s personal identifying information associated with an image of an intimate body part of that other person without the consent of the other person.”
… about that Medi-Cal Technical Assistance Program • We’re still waiting. • DHCS released a draft RFA for comment in January. Responses to those comments were published in March. • All of the federal dollars for the program are still sitting on the table.
Message Points • Health IT undergirds all of health reform and delivery system reforms (ACOs, medical homes, etc.) • Moving providers to EHR is a “triple win” for the State of California: – Once when federal money flows in through provider incentives; – Again when those incentives are taxed; and – A third time when providers become more efficient.
• The State of California already goes above and beyond federal requirements for privacy and security of information.
Contact • David Ford, Interim Executive Director: 916730-7671 or [email protected]. • DeeAnne McCallin, REC Director: 510-3023364 or [email protected]. • www.calhipso.org.
