current legislative activity

Bills sponsored by CALCRA

AB 713, authored by Assemblymember Kansen Chu (D-San Jose): Current law requires providers of Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC’s) to follow a standard of procedures and conditions when considering a voluntary or involuntary resident transfer between levels of care. These standards include analyzing the necessity and appropriateness of the transfer, taking into consideration the resident’s physical and mental condition. Residents who dispute a CCRC’s transfer decision may request a review by the Continuing Care Contracts Branch of the state Department of Social Services.  However, in their review, the department only considers whether or not the provider accurately followed the transfer procedure: were appropriate notices given, were care conferences scheduled, etc. In this review, DSS does not consider whether or not the resident’s physical or cognitive condition warrants an involuntary transfer. In other words, the transfer decision itself is not open to appeal or review.

This bill would require the department, when reviewing a resident-disputed transfer, to consider the appropriateness and necessity of the transfer, including the physical, cognitive, mental and emotional functional abilities of the resident, and an explanation of the assessment as conducted by the provider. This bill would also require the provider to use an assessment tool in determining the appropriateness of the transfer and share the assessment with the resident.

It is widely recognized that the aging demographic is increasing, as is the interest in senior living options, including CCRCs. Many CCRCs have extensive waiting lists for their independent living units. AB 713 ensures that high demand for these units is not putting pressure on providers to accelerate vacancies with the transfer of independent living residents to a higher level of care.

Supported by CALCRA

AB 275 (Wood): Long-term care facilities: requirements for changes resulting in the inability of the facility to care for its residents.
Summary: Would expand the notice and planning requirements that a long-term health care facility provides before any change in the status of the license or in the operation of the facility that results in its inability to care for its residents. The bill would require a facility to provide 60 days’ notice to the affected residents or their guardians and 60-day written notice to the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. The bill would modify who may perform the required assessments of the affected residents. 

AB 940 (Weber): Long-term health care facilities: notice.
Summary: Would require a long-term health care facility to notify the local long-term care ombudsman any time a resident is notified in writing of a transfer or discharge from the facility, as specified. The bill would provide that a failure to provide that notice would constitute a class B violation for purposes of a department-issued citation. The bill would authorize the department to impose additional penalties under those provisions if the failure to send the notice is intentional. 

SB 313 (Hertzberg): Advertising: automatic renewal and continuous service offers

Summary: Would prohibit a business from charging a consumer’s credit or debt card, or the consumer’s account with a 3rd party, for an automatic renewal offer or continuous service offer that is made at a promotional or discounted price for a limited period of time without first obtaining the consumer’s consent to the agreement. The bill would also specify that if the automatic service offer or continuous service offer includes a free gift or trial, the business is required to disclose how to cancel, and allow the consumer to cancel, the automatic renewal or continuous service before the consumer pays for the goods or services. 

Opposed by CALCRA

AB 853 (Choi): Continuing care retirement communities 

Summary: Would amend the definition of "repayable contract." In view of the passage last year of SB 939, it is not clear why this is necessary. Would limit the conditions under which DSS evaluates construction projects. Would weaken DSS's ability to determine economic viability of phases of construction of CCRCs. Would dilute factors required to satisfy the liquid reserve requirement.