Welcome to the CDR Legislative Comments Blog!

Please feel free to post comments and opinions on any listed State of California Legislation related to Disability Rights, or National Legislation limited to compelling Disability Rights issues.
Comments are now moderated to avoid spammers - sorry

To get a bill or proposition listed please email the information to: cdr4info@aol.com

Thank you for visiting the CDR Legislative Comments Blog!
Regards,
CDR Legislative Committee

AB 999 Yamada Long Term Care Insurance Rate Stabilization

Office of Assemblymember Mariko Yamada • AB 999 Fact Sheet • 4/20/2011 • Page 1
Assembly Bill 999 (Yamada)
Long-Term Care Insurance
SUMMARY
Assembly Bill 999 would modify the long-term care (LTC) insurance premium rate development
process to protect consumers from excessive premium rate volatility. In addition, AB 999 would
allow consumers to review policy language prior to purchase to allow a consumer to make a more
informed decision.
BACKGROUND
Long-term care (LTC) insurance was first sold in California in the early 1980’s. Since it was a new
product, insurers had no historical experience upon which to rely when setting initial premium rates.
As a result, initial pricing of LTC policies was often based upon what were later found to be
inaccurate assumptions. For instance, insurers initially priced LTC policies based upon a lapse rate
that mirrored the 5% lapse rate found in life insurance policies. This assumption was ultimately
found to be erroneous as most consumers who purchased LTC policies maintained these policies
for decades, thereby assuring that benefits would be available to them in their later years.
As insurers gained more experience in the LTC market, premium rates increased to compensate for
the initial pricing inaccuracies. In response to LTC rate increases on a national level, the National
Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) adopted Model Laws in the late 1990’s in order to
stabilize escalating LTC rates. Following the NAIC Model, the California legislature passed SB 898
in 2000 which became effective on certain dates in 2002 and 2003.
NEED FOR BILL
The rate stabilization features of SB 898 were intended to ensure adequate pricing by requiring that
insurers certify that initial rates were “sufficient to cover costs under moderately adverse
experience,” thereby protecting consumers against the large rate increases that characterized prestabilization
LTC policies. However, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) and insurance
regulators nationwide are seeing an influx of rate increase filings on existing policies. Some of these
rate increases are as high as a one-time increase of 60% or in the form of multiple increases of 20 to
30%. This growing and disturbing trend of LTC rate increases will not stabilize without regulatory
action. Left unchecked, these volatile rate increases will threaten the ability of California consumers
to maintain the protections they relied upon when initially purchasing their LTC policies.
PROPOSAL
AB 999 proposes to do the following:
1. Prohibit insurers from increasing rates more frequently than once every 5 years
for pre-stabilization policies and once every 10 years for post-stabilization
policies.
Why this is needed: Limiting the frequency of rate increases will provide insureds
with greater premium rate predictability, which is especially important for the
many LTC insureds who are on fixed incomes. With this change, insurers will be
Office of Assemblymember Mariko Yamada • AB 999 Fact Sheet • 4/20/2011 • Page 2
forced to make a more accurate prediction of a necessary rate increase since they
wouldn’t be able to file for rate increases request as frequently.
2. Establish that an insurance company may not target a lifetime loss ratio lower
than the higher of the minimum required by law and the target loss ratio
disclosed in a past rate filing by an insurer.
Why this is needed: Consumers have little predictability in LTC rates because an
insurer can change the loss ratio, thus affecting the rates in the future. AB 999
will prevent an insurer from using a loss ratio that is a “moving target” to justify
a rate increase.
3. Require that an insurer’s rate increase filings include the experience of all LTC
written by that insurer and its affiliate (pools the experience of both closed and
open blocks of business).
Why this is needed: If insurers were required to base a rate increase upon
experience that is spread among all LTC forms written in the state rather than
any particular block alone, premiums would stabilize for all clients for that
insurer. The changes proposed by AB 999 would require insurers to pool the
experience of both the closed and open blocks of business, thus stabilizing rates
for insureds.
4. Establish that, for new policy pricing, the insurer cannot shift the impact of the
insurer’s poor investment results to the insured. (Insurer bears the burden of bad
investment times instead of passing the loss to the insured.)
Why this is needed: When an insurer overestimates anticipated investment
return, statute allows insurers to pass the shortfall onto consumers in the form of
a rate increase to make up the difference. Furthermore, insurers are better
positioned to be able to bear the consequences of less than expected investment
return than the consumer (many of whom are on fixed incomes). AB 999 would
prevent an insurer from placing the financial burden of an investment downturn
on the consumer.
5. Require LTC insurers to post sample policies on their websites, allowing
consumers to view policy language prior to purchasing an LTC policy.
Why this is needed: Consumers are often confused about the features of LTC
policies because statute doesn’t require insurers to allow consumers to view
policies before purchasing them. The availability of sample policies would
improve the consumer’s understanding of the policy, promote more meaningful
comparison shopping, and allow the consumer to make an informed decision
about the purchase of the policy.
Office of Assemblymember Mariko Yamada • AB 999 Fact Sheet • 4/20/2011 • Page 3
6. Clarify the LTC loss-ratio requirements per the National Association of
Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) recommendation.
Why this is needed: As part of the NAIC accreditation process, the NAIC has
suggested a simple clarification to CIC 10236.1(d) which was added by statute in
2009. AB 999 would eliminate any ambiguity in the interpretation of the existing
statute. The change does not impact the current meaning of the statute; it merely
clarifies it.
SUPPORT
California Department of Insurance (Sponsor)
Alzheimer’s Association
California Health Advocates
California Senior Legislature
STAFF CONTACT AND SPONSOR
Author’s Office
Ian Blair
Legislative Aide
Honorable Mariko Yamada
State Capitol, Room 5160
(916) 319-2008
California Department of Insurance (Sponsor)
Josephine R. Figueroa Michael Martinez, Deputy Commissioner
Legislative Consultant Legislative Director
Legislative Office California Department of Insurance
300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700 Legislative Office
Sacramento, CA 95814 300 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
(916) 492-3550 Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 492-3573

CA: SB 500 (as amended 1/12/10) – Support if Amended

January 12, 2010

Honorable Darrell Steinberg
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814


SUBJECT: SB 500 (as amended 1/12/10) – Support if Amended

Dear Senator Steinberg:

Californians for Disability Rights, Inc., [CDR] is the largest cross-disability membership advocacy organization in California. CDR has long fought for affordable and accessible housing for Californians with disabilities; as without the housing component of access – we, and California, cannot fully realize the promise of the ADA and the Olmstead Supreme Court decision based on the community integration civil rights within the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.

We wish to thank you for including funding for persons with “special” housing needs. However, we are concerned that the specific language of SB500 does not spell out clearly enough the role of the State of California in meeting the accessibility needs of Californians with disabilities.

We are concerned that SB500 does not clearly address not only the accessibility requirements for tenants or homeowners; but does not address the “visitability” and “universal design” concepts that CDR and others worked so hard to get into California’s legislative language in order to begin providing housing stock that makes community integration truly doable.

We have read the amendments as presented by the ARC of California and agree with their amendments. We also wish to submit an additional amendment for setting baseline accessibility requirements whenever state or federal funds are expended for housing in California.

“Para [?] Housing funds used for new construction with state or federal dollars shall, at a minimum, provide a zero change level entry; doorways and hallways leading from that entry with adequate width for wheelchair travel and maneuvering; a bathroom/toilet room with reinforced walls for installation of grab bars in the shower/bath area and the toilet area; a sleeping or guest area with an accessible doorway.

Housing funds used for modification of existing housing with state or federal dollars shall, at a minimum, include all the requirements as stated in paragraph [?] to the extent that such changes and modifications are readily achievable.”

It has long been the considered opinion of CDR and its members that state housing funds that have been expended since the enactment of the ADA, that have not included the above


or similar requirements, place the State of California in jeopardy of violating the general non-discrimination clauses of the American with Disabilities Act. As always, we encourage proactive measures be taken by the state and the state housing agency to eliminate discriminatory spending of state funds and a fully realized “Olmstead” plan that can be accomplished only when affordable and accessible housing becomes readily available to every Californian with a disability.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,

Sincerely,


Laura E Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights, Inc.
Sac office [not staffed] 916-447-2237

lemwilliams@gmail.com

2007 AB 463 Huffman CDR SPONSORED

Parking in Two Spaces

Allows PWD's with placards or plates to park in two standard spaces in public or private parking lots or on streets or highways.

CDR SPONSORED/Chaptered

2007-08 Session - California Assembly Bill 463

Link to information sheet

So Just Why Has the USA not Signed?

So just why hasn't the USA signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities?

Guiding Principles of the Convention
There are eight guiding principles that underlie the Convention and each one of its specific articles:

-Respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices, and independence of persons
-Non-discrimination
-Full and effective participation and inclusion in society
-Respect for difference and acceptance of persons with disabilities as part of human diversity and humanity
-Equality of opportunity
-Accessibility
-Equality between men and women
-Respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities and respect for the right of children with disabilities to preserve their identities

2007 AB 1531 DeSaulnier SUPPORT

Accessible Parking, Multiple offender fines; state parking lots

CDR SUPPORTS/Chaptered

2007-08 Session - California Assembly Bill 1531

2007 SB 633 Alquist SUPPORT

This bill authorizes a private hospital to post its hospital discharge planning policy and to provide specified patients with information relating to community-based long-term care options.

CDR SUPPORTS/Chaptered

2007-08 Session - California Senate Bill 633

2007 AB 1113 Brownley SUPPORT

250% Working Disabled

Remove sunset, expand eligibility

CDR SUPPORT/VETOED

2007-08 Session - California Assembly Bill 1113

2007 AB 238 Beall CDR SUPPORTS

Blind Services Reader Bill

Provides up to one hour per month to read correspondence. We do not ask recipients to have a friend or neighbor assist with bathing - why would we tell blind recipients to ask friends or neighbors to read thier personal mail?

CDR SUPPORTS/VETOED

2007-08 Session - California Assembly Bill 238

2007 AB 18 Blakeslee CDR SUPPORTS

Signature Stamp Bill

This act shall be known as the Warren Mattingly Signature Stamp Act.

CDR Supports/Chaptered

2007-08 Session - California Assembly Bill 18

AB 1847 Leslie [SUPPORT] Tax Credit for Small Business Barrier Removal

AB 1847 Leslie - CDR is a co-sponsor of this legislation.
We were disappointed that it was kept in appropriations.

The first hearing in Tax and Revenue was March 28th. It enjoyed wide support from many disability organizations, including CFILC, CCB, CDR, CARA; business organizations including the restaurant association, builders association; and local governments through the local building officials-CALBO. The current opposition is the tax reform group [letter in file]. This bill is not dead - it was sent to suspense, the committee requested amending language to bring the state and federal credits more into balance.
We are still looking for more supporters and co-authors. Ask your representatives to sign on as co-author! We currently have 14 - 3 dems and 11 repubs

AB 2014 [CDR OPPOSE] Berg Consolidation of Disability in Aging Departments

AB 2014, as amended, Berg Programs for the seniors and
independent adults.
Existing law provides various services to persons with
disabilities and seniors, which are overseen by the State Department
of Social Services, including the In-Home Supportive Services
Program, the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act,
and the development of guidelines in the implementation of local
adult protective services programs, to assist them in living in the
community instead of being placed in a facility. Existing law also
vests in the Department of Rehabilitation the responsibility and
authority for the encouragement of the planning, development, and
funding of independent living centers. Existing law also establishes
various programs under the jurisdiction of the California Department
of Aging, including, but not limited to, the California Adult Day
Health Care program.
This bill would rename the California Department of Aging the
California Department of Adult and Aging Services and would transfer
responsibility for the above-described programs to the California
Department of Adult and Aging Services.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

CDR OPPOSES the consolidation of hard won disability services into the department of Aging.

SB 1724 Runner University Contracts [CDR OPPOSES]

SB 1724, as amended, Runner California State University.

The bill would, notwithstanding a provision of existing law that
requires the Department of General Services to approve, with respect
to access compliance, plans and specifications for state buildings
that are intended for use by the public and constructed with state
funds, authorize the trustees to perform this function for California
State University buildings and facilities that are intended for use
by the public and constructed with state funds.

CDR OPPOSES the self certification of ACCESS by the Universities.
NOTE: It appears that this paragraph has been amended out - and may now pose no problems for CDR. We will maintain a WATCH

SB 1248 Alquist [CDR SUPPORTS] Patient's Rights

SB 1248, as amended, Alquist Long-term health care facilities:
resident rights.
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the
State Department of Health Services of skilled nursing and
intermediate care facilities. Existing law requires that written
policies regarding the rights of patients in those
facilities be established and made available by such a
facility to the patient, to any guardian, next of kin,
sponsoring agency, or representative payee, and to the public.
Existing law requires those policies and procedures to ensure that
each patient admitted to the facility has certain rights and is
notified of certain facility obligations, in addition to those
specified by regulation.

SB 1451 Kehoe [SUPPORT] Disability Advisory to Emergency Preparedness

SB 1451, as amended, Kehoe Emergency preparedness, planning, and
information.
Existing law provides for emergency services, as specified.
This bill would provide that the State Fire Marshal shall convene
a permanent advisory committee, composed of representatives from
specified groups, to make recommendations to the State Fire Marshal,
the Legislature, and appropriate state and local agencies regarding
preparedness, planning, procedures, and the provision of accessible
information relating to the emergency evacuation of designated groups
from public and private facilities and private residences during emergency
or disaster situations. The bill would require the State Fire
Marshal to develop and host training workshops, to prepare and
disseminate brochures and other relevant materials, and to seek
research funding to develop new technologies and information systems
relating to the evacuation of the designated groups from public and
private facilities and private residences during emergency
and disaster situations. The bill would set forth legislative
findings and declarations regarding the need for the bill and would
state that it is the intent of the Legislature that the annual Budget
Act shall appropriate federal Homeland Security funds to the State
Fire Marshal in order to implement the act.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

AB 2536 Montanez [OPPOSE] Eliminate IWC Exemption to O/T Homecare

AB 2536 (Montanez), would eliminate the personal attendant exemption of overtime for third party employers and individuals who provide personal care services to supervise, feed and dress a person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or mental disability needs supervision. The end result is reduced shifts for clients and wages for workers, with more split shifts with different caregivers. Our providers pay between $9-11/hour and their employees provide companion care to seniors and disabled. This bill will result in decreased wages and hours to comply with the 8 hour/40 hour work week that just isn't feasible in a home care setting. The exemption was set up by the IWC in 1986 for a reason -to ensure that care was payrolled and above ground and that is the way we want it to remain.

Not to mention the impact on MSSP programs and regional centers who contract with vendors to provide the services. They will get less respite and personal care services from the agencies they contract and will likely reduce the hours that can be made available to the seniors or disabled child/adult and/or will deplete the budget much quicker.

This bill stands to impact our members and the seniors and disabled who receive these services, who will no longer be able to afford care under this bill. The sponsors of the bill have no data to demonstrate the impact on the provider and client community. Their stories all stem from individuals who are paid below minimum wage by individuals in the community. But, not from organized businesses who follow Wage Orders and comply with taxes, workers compensation, etc.

I would ask that you:
1) Put this on your list and examine it with an eye on how client's would be able to afford services if this is passed;
2) Oppose this bill and write a letter of opposition asking for third party employers to be excluded from this bill.

If you have any questions, call me at (916) 569-2469. Please let me know if you can oppose and contact the author's office on this bill.
On the outset, it sounds good, but the long-term impact is not the intended consequence.
Thank you,
Barbara

Barbara Biglieri
Director of Policy
California Association for Health Services at Home
3780 Rosin Court, Suite 190
Sacramento, CA 95834
(916) 641-5795 ext. 123
(916) 641-5881

AB 3019 Daucher [SUPPORT]Assesment Tool -Community Options

Having the right assessment tool has been talked about in these many years of Olmstead Planning - I move we support AB 3019,
Laura

BILL NUMBER: AB 3019 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Daucher

FEBRUARY 24, 2006

An act to add Section 14495.15 to the Welfare and Institutions
Code, relating to Medi-Cal, and declaring the urgency thereof, to
take effect immediately.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 3019, as introduced, Daucher Medi-Cal: Community options and
assessment protocol.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, administered by
the State Department of Health Services, pursuant to which medical
benefits are provided to public assistance recipients and certain
other low-income persons. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed
and funded by federal Medicaid provisions.
This bill would authorize the department to develop and test the
Community Options and Assessment Protocol to minimize duplication and
redundancy of multiple assessments for home- and community-based
services and connect consumers under the Medi-Cal program.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
Vote: 2/3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.

AB 2634 Lieber [SUPPORT] Extremely Low Income Hsg Requirements

AB 2634 would address California's affordable housing crisis for its most vulnerable residents, by amending state law to ensure that local communities develop housing plans that adequately address the housing needs of extremely low income (ELI) households including persons with disabilities, entry level workers, and seniors.

SB 1114 [SUPPORT] Boards Serving Blind be 20% B/VI

SB 1114 by the Senate Human Services Committee requires 20% of all boards of directors of agencies who serve the blind to be comprised of blind or visually impaired board members. This is for agencies that receive rehab funds.

SB 1116 Scott [CDR SUPPORTS] Conservatee Residence Rights

SB 1116, as amended, Scott Conservatorships.
(1) Existing law generally authorizes a guardian or conservator to
fix the residence of a conservatee or ward within the state without
permission of the court, by selecting the least restrictive
appropriate setting, as specified, that is in the best interests of
the conservatee. Existing law requires the guardian or conservator to
promptly give notice of all changes in the residence of a
conservatee or ward.
This bill would revise and recast this provision to permit a
guardian or conservator to select the least restrictive appropriate
residence of a conservatee or ward. This bill would require a
presumption that the least restrictive appropriate residence for the
conservatee is the personal residence of that conservatee ,
except if proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence .
This bill would require a conservator to evaluate the level of care
and measures necessary to keep the conservatee in his or her personal
residence or explain the limitations or restrictions regarding a
return to the conservatee to his or her personal residence. The
bill would req uire this determination to be made in
writing under penalty of perjury. Because this bill would change the
definition of the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-
mandated local program. This bill would require the
guardian or conservator to file notice of the change of address for a
ward or conservatee in 30 days. This bill would permit the court to
waive notice of the change of address in order to prevent harm to the
conservatee or ward.

AB 1363 Jones [CDR Supports] Conservatorship

AB 1363, as amended, Jones Omnibus Conservatorship and
Guardianship Reform Act of 2006.
Existing law governs the establishment of conservatorships and
guardianships. Existing law requires conservators and guardians to
present a biennial accounting of the assets of the conservatee or
ward and requires a biennial review of each conservatorship. Existing
law requires the Department of Justice to maintain a statewide
registry of conservators, guardians, and trustees. A court may not
appoint a person as a conservator, guardian, or trustee unless that
person is registered if he or she is required to do so.

AB 1948 Montanez [CDR SUPPORTS] Pre-enrollment

AB 1948, as amended, Montanez Medi-Cal program: Healthy Families
Program: Child Health and Disability Prevention (CHDP) program.
This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2008, to modify
the electronic preenrollment application process to include a
process to be used, at the option and with the written consent of the
person applying on the child's behalf, to simultaneously preenroll
and apply for enrollment into the Healthy Families Program or
Medi-Cal program. It would require this process to include an
application to provide for continuing preliminary benefits until a
final eligibility determination is made.
------
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is
administered by the State Department of Health Services and under
which qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits.
Existing law establishes the Healthy Families Program,
administered by the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board, to arrange
for the provision of health services to an eligible person.
Existing law establishes the Child Health and Disability
Prevention (CHDP) program, administered by the department, to provide
early and periodic assessments of the health status of children.
Under existing law, benefits under the Medi-Cal program provided
to an individual pursuant to a preliminary determination end, without
the necessity for any further review or determination by the
department, on or before the last day of the month following the
month in which the preliminary determination was made, unless an
application for medical assistance is filed on or before that date.
If an application for medical assistance is filed before this
deadline, preliminary benefits continue until the regular eligibility
determination based on the application has been completed.
Existing law requires the department to develop an electronic
application to serve as the application for preenrollment into the
Medi-Cal program or the Healthy Families Program and to also serve as
an application for the CHDP program.

AB 3048 Dymally [SUPPORT] IHSS Pay for Dr's Appt

AB 3048 (Dymally) is sponsored by the California Association of Public
Authorities and co-sponsored by SEIU and UDW. This bill allows IHSS workers
to be paid for accompanying their consumers on medical appointments. We
hope you will be able to support this important measure and write a letter
in support. AB 3048 will be heard in the Assembly Human Services Committee
on April 25th and a sample letter in support is attached along with the text
of the bill. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any
additional information. We look forward to working with you on this and
other IHSS legislation that could improve this vital program.



Karen Keeslar
CAPA Legislative Advocate
(916) 448-5049
keeslar@sbcglobal.net

AB 2120 Liu [OPPOSE] Expand Certifiers for Handicapped Placards

AB 2120, as introduced, Liu Vehicles: disabled persons: disabled
veterans: parking placards.
Existing law authorizes the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue
distinguishing placards to disabled persons or disabled veterans, to
be used for parking purposes, as described. Prior to issuing the
parking placard, the Department of Motor Vehicles requires the
submission of a certificate, signed by an authorized health care
professional, providing a full description substantiating the
applicant's disability, unless the disability is readily observable
and uncontested. Under existing law, the authorized health care
professional that signs the certificate is required to retain
information sufficient to substantiate the certificate, and make the
information available to certain entities, upon request of the
department.
This bill would expand the health care professionals authorized to
sign the certificate substantiating the applicant's disability to
include nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician
assistants.

MINORITY OPINION to SUPPORT
I proffer my support for this bill.

One issue to be considered carefully is how Health
Mangling (read Managment) Organizations have relied
more and more heavily on the allied health care
professional to provide comprehensive medical care.
D.O. (Osteopathic Doctor i.e. Chiropractor and the
like), C.N.M. (Certified Nurse Midwife), C.N.P
(Certified Nurse Practioner), and P.A. (Physicians
Assistant) personnel have undergone extensive academic
and clinical training and are assuming more and more
of a primary care role within the "modern" health care
delivery model.

My husband received his care from a P.A. who is now in
charge of the urgent care department of a
multi-specialty, multi-location medical group and I
have received gynecologic care from a C.N.P. There
are legitimate medical conditions that women are
diagnosed with everyday that can fall into the
category of an impairment, temporary more likely than
permanent that a C.N.P or C.N.M. will diagnose and
treat as well as refer to other appropriate
specialties if necessary. A P.A. is qualified and
licensed to provide medical care including surgery.
Medicare, Medi-Cal and all of the private HMO's are
requiring assignment to allied health care
professionals all in the name of cost cutting. That
is not to say that any medical care provider is better
than another, more approachable, more appropriate than
another, more competent than another but if a person
requires a placard application completed and they do
not see an M.D, how are they supposed to accomplish
this?

I envision the need to make a consultation appointment
with an M.D whose office cannot set an appointment for
3 months and it will take up to 1 month just to get
their medical documentation to that M.D. who will then
need another 2 weeks to read through it and make a
determination of necessity when their regular
practioner who knows them and their medical
condition(s) like a book can do this in one visit.

Although I fully recognize and totally agree that the
medical determinations of pediatricians are suspect
for authorizing a placard for a 21 year old person who
was their patient until their 18th birthday just
because they whined a little to get a placard to avoid
paying exorbatant parking fees at college is but one
example of a system that has been demonstrated to be
corrupt and has demonstrated real and serious cases of
abuse.

But we must remember the changing face of medical
health care delivery systems and that the D.O, P.A,
C.N.M, and other allied health care professionals have
assumed a front and center role. This bill expands
their ability to provide their patient with disAbility
the public services they require by being allowed to
complete and authorize a parking placard. Following
the UCLA scandal, there were additional enforceable
provisions
of protection against the rempant abuses we saw. I do
not believe this bill, in any way, tampers with
existing law.

Ruthee Goldkorn

AB 2278 Koretz ID for Assistive Animal [CDR OPPOSES]

AB 2278, as amended, Koretz Assistive animals.
Existing law authorizes disabled persons to full and equal access
to facilities and accommodations, as specified. Existing law also
authorizes those persons to be accompanied by service dogs, as
specified.
This law would require the state State and
Consumer Services Agency to designate a lead agency to be
responsible for creating and producing an Assistive Animal Identification Card, which would entitle the service assistive animal
who is identified on the card to accompany the disabled person to the
extent provided under existing law.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.
CDR OPPOSES Federal Law and the DOJ regulations do not allow ID's to be required before a PWD enters a public accomodation. State ID's can only be utilized when an enhanced level of access beyond the minimum federal requirements are provided by the state as a result of that ID. Federal law does not allow fees to be charged for basic access to programs and services.

AB651 Berg Assisted Suicide - CDR OPPOSES

AB651 Berg Assisted Suicide
[see also AB654]Two bills to legalize physician-assisted suicide are stalled but remain alive. As of this writing, AB 654 (Berg-Levine) is on the Assembly Inactive File[now dead], and its gutted-and-amended clone, AB 651 (Berg-Levine) is in the California Senate, where it has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee but not scheduled for a hearing. Both bills have missed deadlines for moving forward this year, but they are *not* dead. The authors are speaking out via the press an trying to neutralize the opposition. Opposition from the disability community, including groups like CDR, has been critically important in preventing passage of this dangerous legislation so far. We need to make sure the authors' arguments don't go unchallenged. Many expect that even if the bill fails in the Legislature, supporters will keep trying, possibly as a ballot measure. So the battle over this issue will continue.

CDR OPPOSES

SB840 Kuehl Single Payer Health Insurance - CDR SUPPORTS!!!

Universal -Single payer- Health Coverage

CDR SUPPORTS

AB1643 JonesState employees LTC [CDR SUPPORTS]

AB1643 JonesState employees LTC
Coverage for disabled in state service. A feasibility study to cover employees with disabilities - currently not eligible for LTC insurance.

CDR SUPPORTS

UPDATE!! Hearing Cancelled at request of author 8-16-05

AB 707 Hancock [CDR Opposes]Vote by Mail

AB 707, as amended, Hancock
Voting by mail: June 6, 2006, primary election.
(1) Existing law authorizes a local, special, or consolidated
election to be conducted wholly by mail if the governing body of the
local agency authorizes the use of all mailed ballots for the
election, the election is held on an established mailed ballot
election date, and the election meets certain other specified
requirements.
CDR Opposes this bill as it is apparently being used by Counties that do not meet HAVA or ADA access standards for polling places.

National Issues Report

MiCASSA
S.401 Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] and Sen Specter, Arlen [PA]

H.R.910 Sponsor: Rep Davis, Danny K. [IL-7] and Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19]
Federal Legislation to ensure services at home.
CDR SUPPORTs

Money Follows the Person
S.528
H.R. 3063
SIGNED! A bill to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide grants to States to conduct demonstration projects that are designed to enable medicaid-eligible individuals to receive support for appropriate and necessary long-term services in the settings of their choice.
CDR SUPPORTS

Help US Senators Oppose the Medicare In-Home Restriction
Please Ask Your Senators to Sign the Senate "Dear Colleague" Letter Today!
We Need to Support Senators Santorum and Bingaman in Opposing Medicare's " In-home" Restriction!
As background, Medicare's "in the home" restriction limits coverage of mobility devices (e.g., wheelchairs) to only those devices necessary within a person's home. So, a Medicare beneficiary who is able to function at home, but who needs a mobility device in the community (to work, go to a doctor appointment or attend worship services) would not be eligible. The restriction goes against current US policy and law, such as the ADA and the New Freedom Initiative.
CDR SUPPORTS

Bill Number: H.R. 1441
Sponsor: Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL)
Official Title as Introduced: 'To require all newly constructed, federally assisted, single-family houses and town houses to meet minimum standards of visitability for persons with disabilities. '

Inclusive Home Design Act of 2005 - Requires, with exceptions, newly constructed, federally assisted single family houses and town houses to include at least one level that complies with the following accessibility features for persons with disabilities: (1) accessible entrance; (2) accessible interior doors; (3) accessible environmental controls; and (4) accessible habitable space and an accessible bathroom. Requires: (1) each applicant for Federal financial assistance to submit compliance assurances to the relevant Federal agency; and (2) each person who arranges for design or construction of a covered dwelling to submit architectural and construction plans for State or local approval. Prohibits Federal financial assistance to a State or local government unit unless the recipient is taking certain enforcement actions with regard to covered dwellings. Permits: (1) private civil actions in a U.S. District Court or State court for violations under this Act; and (2) the Attorney General to commence civil actions or intervene in civil actions under this Act.
CDR SUPPORTS

Direct Support Professionals Fairness and Security Act
H.R. 1264
Earlier this year, Representatives Lee Terry (R-NE) and Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced the Direct Support Professionals Fairness and Security Act of 2005 (H.R. 1264). Reps. Terry and Capps recognize the inadequate wages paid to hundreds of thousands of direct support professionals who struggle daily to enhance the lives of people with disabilities while at the same time struggling to provide income security for their own families. H.R. 1264 represents a first step in bringing an unfair situation to the attention of Congress and the nation.
CDR PENDING

Increase Accessibility, Reduce Cost of Long-Term Care
S 1602Intended to help reduce the cost and increase the accessibility of long-term care for elderly U.S. residents and individuals with disabilities.
Prohibit states from considering benefits paid under a long-term care insurance policy when determining eligibility for Medicaid;
Expand a long-term care partnership that currently operates as a demonstration program in four states;
Allow states to offer home- and community-based services as part of their state Medicaid plan; and
Add a set of consumer protections,
individuals who purchase policies with such consumer protections would be eligible for tax deductions and credits to cover the cost of the out-of-pocket expenditures of caregivers.
The tax credit would be implemented over four years, starting with $1,000 this year and increasing to $3,000 in 2009. The tax credit would decrease by $100 for each $1,000 -- or fraction of $1,000 -- that the taxpayer's modified adjusted growth income exceeds $150,000 for a joint return or $75,000 for an individual return.
CDR PENDING

AB258 Matthews DME - CDR OPPOSES! SIGNED

AB258 Matthews [chaptered]
UPDATE!! Amendments of 30 August inserted "Certificate of Medical Necessity" - just when medicare is getting it right to ELIMINATE the CMN, Medi-Cal wants to insert it! This term is most often used to deny mobility equipment we need for community living. Medi-Cal Durable Medical Equipment Requires a qualified rehab professional for custom durable medical equipment.

CDR NOW OPPOSES -Letter Sent

SIGNED!! AB462 Tran Access Review DSA to DOT - CDR OPPOSES!

[chaptered] This bill had last minute changes to require a Certified Access training for engineers 180 days after the CASP becomes effective.
Moves the requirement to approve contracts in re: disability access from DSA to DOT. There was voiced concern that Caltrans, in the past, has not appropriately provided oversight to compliance with state and federal access laws.
There is insufficient evidence that the "certified access specialist" program, when fully functional, would provide adequate oversight to an agency such as Caltrans, which has repeatedly over the many years, lacked the ability or the will or both, to comply with both Federal and State Access Code Requirements.

CDR OPPOSES and continues to oppose

SIGNED! SB643 Chesbro - Transition to Community - CDR SUPPORTS!!

SB643 Chesbro [chaptered]
Transition from SNF to Community Services, case management. Olmstead implications Reduced to be a waiver slot add of 500 slots.

CDR SUPPORTS

AB10 Daucher LTC Placement - CDR SUPPORTS!

Require DHS to adopt by July 1, 2007, a uniform statewide tool for the appropriate placement and discharge in compliance with the Olmstead SC decision. To require a pilot in three areas; charge a fee to non-medicaid consumers for LTC navigation servisews. To apply for federal matching funds - to be used for navigation for medicaid eligibles.

CDR SUPPORTS

VETOED!! AB778 Mullin Auto Insurance CDR SUPPORTS!

AB778 MullinAuto Insurance:
IHSSProhibits the insurance industry from canceling an auto policy due to the insured IHSS worker using a private vehicle to provide transportation for the IHSS consumer.

CDR SUPPORTS

SB855 Poochigian Lawsuit Notice Requirement - CDR OPPOSES!!!!

Would require notice and waiting period before commencing litigation for disability access laws, codes and regulation violations.

CDR STRONGLY OPPOSES

AB20 Leslie Disabled Access Technical Violations -CDR OPPOSES!

Amends Civil Code 54.3
The Disabled Persons Act Would preclude an action for damages against a public facility for de minimus deviation from a code or regulation. Provides only injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

CDR OPPOSES

SB 1760 Perata !!VETOED!! CDR Co-Sponsored "Soverign Immunity Waiver for the ADA"

!!VETOED!! Wednesday, September 29th
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1760 without my signature.
The State of California provides civil and administrative protections against disability
discrimination that are as broad as those provided under federal law. In many instances,
California disability laws provide more extensive remedies than those contained in
federal law. It is, therefore, unnecessary to subject the State to suit under the Americans
with Disabilities Act. SB 1760 would expressly waive the State’s sovereign immunity
under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution and permit the State of
California to be sued for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
For these reasons I am unable to support this measure.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Passed both houses...on to the Governor's desk. Please send your letters of support!

SB1760 would provide that the State of California consents to be sued instate or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtainremedies afforded by the ADA.
Further, it prohibits any public agencyinvolved an action under the ADA to assert that they have any immunity fromsuit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Eleventh Amendmentas providing the state immunity from suits by individuals with disabilitieswho have been injured by discrimination in violation of the ADA.
However, the court has made clear that the states are free to waive theirimmunity and consent to be sued by statute.
It is the purpose of SB1760 to make it clear that the State of Californiawaives this immunity, to achieve the intention of Congress in enacting theADA. Congress intended to hold states accountable for discriminationagainst people with disabilities.
In addition, California has long been aleader in protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities, and hasnot tried to immunize itself from responsibility under the ADA.
I ask that you pass SB 1760, and thereby reaffirm the State¹s commitment tothe civil rights of persons with disabilities. This is a very importantissue for all persons with disabilities. Without an effective enforcementmethod, the ADA is a hollow promise.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this issue.

SB1775 Ortiz !SIGNED! State Disability Access and ADA

SB 1775, Ortiz. Public buildings: disability access.
An act to amend Sections 4450 and 4454 of the Government Code,relating to disability access, and making an appropriation therefor.
In no case shall the State Architect's regulations andbuilding standards prescribe a lesser standard of accessibility orusability than provided by the Accessibility Guidelines prepared bythe federal Access Board as adopted by the United States Departmentof Justice to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(Public Law 101-336)

SB1234 Kuehl !SIGNED! Hate Crimes/PWD's

SB 1234, Kuehl. Crimes: civil rights.
This bill would revise and recast the provisions relating to hatecrimes by, among other things, providing a definition for the term"hate crime." This bill would reduce the above property damage amountto $400. Because this bill would change the definition of existingcrimes and expand the scope of an existing crime, it would impose astate-mandated local program. Under existing law, the Commission on Peace Officer Standards andTraining is required to establish and keep updated a continuingeducation classroom training course relating to law enforcementinteraction with developmentally disabled and mentally ill persons.The course is required to contain core instruction in specifiedareas. This bill would change the term "developmentally disabled andmentally ill persons" to "mentally disabled persons." This billwould include in the course instruction by July 1, 2006, instructionon the fact that the crime was committed in whole or in part becauseof an actual or perceived disability of the victim is a hate crime.The bill would require the commission, using available funding, todevelop by July 1, 2005, a 2-hour telecourse to be made available toall law enforcement agencies in California on crimes against homelesspersons and on how to deal effectively and humanely with homelesspersons, including homeless persons with disabilities. Thetelecourse would be required to include information on multimissioncriminal extremism, as defined.

AB2982 Pacheco !SIGNED! County Disability ReEmployment

AB 2982, Pacheco. County employees' retirement: disabilityretirement.
Under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, after theboard of retirement determines that a member of the retirement systemhas been incapacitated for the performance of his or her duties butis capable of performing other duties, the appropriate county agencyis requested to initiate and implement a rehabilitation plan pursuantto specified provisions of the Labor Code, which have been repealed. This bill would require the appropriate county agency, after theboard of retirement makes that determination with respect to a memberwho is incapacitated on or after January 1, 2004, to notify themember of suitable county positions and to consult with the member todevelop a reemployment plan for approval by the member, asspecified. (2) Existing law provides that, if a member of a county retirementsystem, without reasonable cause, refuses an offer of alternativework within one year after being determined to be eligible for adisability retirement allowance, the agency employing the member mayhave the member's disability allowance discontinued. This bill would make that provision applicable only to members whowere incapacitated before January 1, 2004. (3) The bill would declare that it is to take effect immediatelyas an urgency statute.

AB20 Leiber !SIGNED! Victims of Crime - PWD Exceptions

AB 20, Lieber. Victims of crime.
Existing law provides that a leading question may be asked ofa child witness who is under 10 years of age in specified casesinvolving prosecution of physical, mental, or sexual abuse. This bill would expand this provision to provide that leadingquestions may be asked of a dependent person with a substantialcognitive impairment in the same circumstance.
Existing law provides that it is a crime for any person who isa caretaker to willfully and lewdly commit any lewd or lasciviousact upon a dependent adult with specified intent punishable byimprisonment in the state prison for 1, 2, or 3 years or byimprisonment in a county jail. If the crime is committed by use offorce, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodilyinjury on the victim or another person, the crime is punishable byimprisonment in the state prison for 3, 6, or 8 years. This bill would make these provisions applicable to all dependentpersons regardless of age. Because this bill would change thedefinition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated localprogram.
This bill would expand this provision to allow the court to closethe testimony of, and relating to, a dependent person with asubstantial cognitive impairment to the public.
Other provisions....

SB1725 Knight !SIGNED! PWD Parking Priveleges

SB 1725, Knight. Vehicles: disabled person: disabled veterans:parking privileges.
This bill would require the department, upon a request to thedepartment by a local or state public law enforcement agency or localagency responsible for the administration or enforcement of parkingregulations, to make available to the requesting agency anyinformation contained in a physician's certificate submitted to thedepartment as part of an application for a special license plate fora disabled person's parking privileges. The bill would authorizelocal authorities to establish a review board or panel for purposesof reviewing information contained in the applications for specialparking privileges and the certification of qualifying disabilitiesfor persons residing within the jurisdiction of the local authority.Any findings or determinations by the review board or panelindicating that an application or certification is fraudulent orlacks proper certification would be transmitted to the department orother appropriate authorities for further review and investigation.

AB1592 Committee !SIGNED! Disabled Vet Enterprise

AB 1592, Committee on Veterans Affairs. California DisabledVeteran Business Enterprise Program.
The bill would specify that the Department of General Services isthe administering agency of the California Disabled Veteran BusinessEnterprise Program except in the case of contracts for professionalbond services, would specify the duties of the Department of GeneralServices in meeting that requirement, would set standards for meetingthe program's participation goals, and would specify reportingcriteria regarding contracts entered into by awarding departmentsthat participate in the program.

AB323 Parra !SIGNED! NonProfit Vet's Service Small Bus Preferential Bid

AB 323, Parra. Nonprofit veteran service agencies.
A nonprofit veteran service agency shall be eligiblefor certification as a small business under the Small BusinessProcurement and Contract Act, as described in Chapter 6.5 (commencingwith Section 14835) of Part 5.5 of Division 3 of Title 2 of theGovernment Code, and may be granted a small business bid preferenceif it meets all of the following conditions.....

AB1886 Pavley !!SIGNED!! CDR Supported! Property Tax Postponement

!UPDATE!! SIGNED!! Tuesday September 28th
The Senior Citizens and Disabled Citizens Property TaxPostponement Law allows senior citizens and disabled persons topostpone their payment of ad valorem property taxes, specialassessments, and fees and other charges due on a residentialdwelling, where household income, as defined, does not exceed either$34,000 or $24,000, as applicable.

AB 2536 Leiber !!VETOED!! CDR Supported! Hotel-Motel Grab Bars

!!UPDATE!!! VETOED on 9-21 -

To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 2536 without my signature as the intent of this bill can be
done administratively through the regulatory process and does not require legislation.
This bill requires the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to
establish building standards by January 1, 2006 regarding the installation of grab bars and
non-skid flooring or mats in hotel bathrooms.
While the goals of the bill are laudable, they can be better accomplished through the
building standards adoption process.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Amended :Requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to propose building standards for grab bars in hotel and motel rooms. Also rquires that slip resistent mats meeting specific standards be made available January 2006.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2501-2550/ab_2536_bill_20040817_amended_sen.html

SB1365 Chesbro !!VETOED!! CDR Supported! Olmstead

!!VETOED!!!! Tuesday September 28th
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 1365 without my signature.
I support the author’s goal to ensure that Californians are provided comprehensive
services supporting the inclusion of persons with disabilities, regardless of age or type of
disability, into community life in lieu of unnecessary institutionalization, consistent with
the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision. I fully support the principles underlying
the Olmstead decision and am committed to making changes in State programs and
policies to ensure that persons with disabilities have appropriate access to and choices of
community based services and placement options.
I have worked to develop innovative approaches to support the ability of people to live in
their homes and communities rather than in institutions, including securing a federal
Independence Plus waiver to ensure continued provision of in home services. My
Administration is also developing statewide assessment tools to help people move out of
institutions or remain in home. In addition, the Health and Human Services Agency
(HHSA) has convened its Long Term Care Council to further develop the state plan and
approach for meeting the requirements of the Olmstead decision.
California’s Olmstead Plan, published in 2003, provides an important roadmap for
supporting the ability of state residents to live in the most integrated setting possible. My
Administration is evaluating this plan and reviewing the best ways to meet the intent of
the Olmstead decision. In that regard, I believe that further review, development and
implementation of the Olmstead Plan must be informed by input from a diversity of
stakeholders. I do not believe that it is necessary to establish such a process in statute, as
proposed by SB 1365, and consider the Olmstead Advisory Council established by SB
1365 to be duplicative of efforts already underway by HHSA to convene an Olmstead
Advisory Committee.
Given my Administration’s strong commitment to the principles and objectives of the
Olmstead Plan as well as to the value of stakeholder engagement and participation, I
believe that formalizing HHSA’s establishment of an Olmstead Advisory Committee
(Committee) is appropriate. I therefore have issued Executive Order S-18-04 directing
HHSA to establish a Committee to provide input to the Agency on its efforts to evaluate,
implement and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve
California’s long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new
activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community. My Administration
looks forward to working with the author in identifying strong candidates to serve on this
Committee.
For these reasons I am unable to sign this measure.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-18-04
by the Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, unnecessary institutional placement of individuals with disabilities adversely affects the everyday life activities, family relations, social contacts, work options, economic independence, and cultural enrichment of those institutionalized persons; and
WHEREAS, the state has a responsibility to protect against the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities; and
WHEREAS, the opportunity to direct one's own affairs, live independently, and attain economic self-sufficiency is an essential component of developing self-worth and personal responsibility; and
WHEREAS, direction has been provided to states under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the United States Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C.; and
WHEREAS, community-based care and services can be more cost effective than institutional care, and result in a higher quality of life that promotes the values of community participation, inclusiveness, and respect for diversity; and
WHEREAS, the active involvement of people with disabilities and their representatives in the development and implementation of activities designed to move people into, or allow them to remain in, community-based settings is critical to insuring effective strategies; and
WHEREAS, California has a demonstrated record of success in providing services that support the full integration of persons with disabilities in community life through such programs as In-Home Supportive Services, Medi-Cal, community mental health, and the comprehensive array of services defined under the Lanterman Act; and
WHEREAS, it is possible to build upon California's previous success to improve procedures and implement new tools that will enable more people to fully access their communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of California, do hereby issue this order effective immediately:
1. The state affirms its commitment to provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting, and to adopt and adhere to policies and practices that make it possible for persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
2. The California Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) shall do all of the following:
A. Assess the state's ability to reasonably accommodate new and improved efforts to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and to facilitate or expand community-based services and supports.
B. Evaluate the May 2003, California Olmstead Plan and make revisions as necessary to insure that it will result in positive action toward the objectives of providing services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting possible, and enabling persons with disabilities to remain in their communities and avoid unnecessary institutionalization.
C. Identify additional strategies to identify Californians who could be served successfully in non-institutional settings and the barriers to these individuals moving at a reasonable pace from, or avoiding admittance to, institutional long-term care facilities.
D. Research funding opportunities to support expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their communities.
E. Develop recommendations for changes in state policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and increase opportunities to utilize community-based services.
F. Develop recommendations for changes in federal policies that will remove programmatic and fiscal incentives for institutional placement and explore options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers.
3. In order to inform the Administration's understanding of the current system and future opportunities and insure the involvement of persons with disabilities and other system stakeholders, the Olmstead Advisory Committee (Committee) is established within the HHSA.
A. The Secretary of HHSA shall select the members of the committee who shall serve at the Secretary's pleasure. The membership of the Committee shall represent the diversity of California's citizenry with respect to culture, language, geography, and disability, including psychiatric, developmental, sensory, cognitive, and physical disabilities. Furthermore, family members, representatives of statewide advocacy organizations, long-term care providers, and city and county governments may also serve on the Committee. Members of the Committee shall serve on a volunteer basis without compensation.
B. The Committee will provide input to the HHSA on its efforts to evaluate, revise, implement, and monitor the Olmstead Plan, on recommended actions to improve California's long-term care system, and on opportunities to fund expanded or new activities to support individuals with disabilities in their community.
4. All state agencies and departments are hereby directed to cooperate with and assist the HHSA in carrying out its duties under this Executive Order.
I FURTHER DIRECT that as soon as hereafter possible, this order be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State and that widespread publicity and notice be given to this order.
This order is not intended to, and does not create any right or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, against the State of California, its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the twenty-seventh day of September 2004./s/
Arnold SchwarzeneggerGovernor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LEGISLATIVE UPDATE
* Senator Chesbro's SB 1365 "Olmstead Bill" Passes Final Vote In Senate
* Heads To Governor - Adminstration Remains Opposed
* Advocates Vow Campaign For Governor To Sign Bill
SACRAMENTO - Legislation that would establish in state law an advisory council to help bring California in compliance with the 1999 US Supreme Court Olmstead Decision passed its final vote in the legislature Wednesday (8/25), with the State Senate approving the amendments made in the Assembly, on a bi-partisan vote of 28 to 8. The bill, SB 1365 by Sen. Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata), now heads to the Governor for consideration, who has until September 30 to sign or veto the measure (he can also allow the bill to become law without his signature).
The Schwarzenegger Administration earlier indicated it would oppose any version of the bill, and the Governor is likely to veto the measure. Advocates meanwhile have vowed to launch a major campaign to urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign the bill, as a step toward bringing the state in compliance with the US Supreme Court ruling. Some advocates have criticized the State for lagging behind in fully implementing the Supreme Court decision - a delay that they say violates the rights of people with disabilities and seniors.
The bill passed the Assembly earlier this week by a vote of 51-27.
The legislation establishes in statute the "Olmstead Advisory Council", and provides that the council shall provide advice and make recommendations to the California Health and Human Services Agency for the placement of individuals in non-institutional settings. Amendments in the Assembly added an additional task to the Olmstead Council, requiring the body toto review options for expanding or modifying the state Medicaid plan or waivers to address barriers to persons moving from or avoiding placement in institutional settings.
Thank you to Marty Omoto and CDCAN for this release! Support !
View website at www.cdcan.us
***
!UPDATE! August 26, 2004 From Peggy Collins
Friends,
Yesterday, SB 1365 received its final Legislative approval and will shortly be before the Governor for his consideration. Only the strong and constant support of persons with disabilities, family members, and their advocates have made the success of this bill possible.
Late last week, I met with Kim Belshé, Secretary of the Health and Human Services Agency, to discuss her opposition to SB 1365. As an outcome of that meeting, the Agency offered numerous amendments for my consideration.
I greatly appreciate Ms. Belshé's willingness to discuss SB 1365 and the offering of amendments.
Among other things, the Agency's proposed amendments:

>deleted language that would have the Olmstead Advisory Council (Council) advise the Legislature on recommended actions to improve our long-term care system;
>deleted language that would have the Council advise on proposed legislation, budget proposals, or regulatory changes that would either adversely impact or enhance the State's ability to comply with the Olmstead decision;
>deleted language that would have the Council review, for consistency with the Olmstead Plan, existing assessment procedures for individuals residing in institutions or at risk of placement in institutions;
>deleted language that would have the Council assist in identifying activities that would ensure that waiting lists move at a reasonable pace;
>deleted language that would have the Council assist in developing a strategy for diverting individuals from initial placement in skilled nursing facilities, and other institutions, including but not limited to, creation of a model assessment process, identification of alternative community services, and recommending a timeline for implementing the strategy statewide;
>deleted language that would have the Council advise the Agency and State Department on regulations and licensing requirements that are inconsistent with, and impede the implementation of, the Olmstead Plan;
>deleted language that would have the Council review options for expanding or modifying the State Medicaid plan or Medicaid waivers to address barriers to persons moving from, or avoiding placement in, institutional facilities;
>deleted language that would have the Department report to the Agency, Legislature and Olmstead Advisory Council, and post on relevant web sites, information about all current home and community based waivers and about any proposed new waivers.

Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts of Ms. Belshé and I firmly believe she is committed to expanding community-living options for persons with disabilities.
However, these proposed amendments were too extensive and submitted too late to allow for meaningful discussion.
Therefore, I could not accept the amendments and SB 1365 was approved by the Legislature in its existing form.
I remain hopeful that, with your continued support, the Governor will sign SB 1365 into law.
I hope you will make one final effort toward this end by contacting the Governor and urging his support. You can contact the Governor at:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol BuildingSacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633
To send an Electronic Mail, please visit:http://www.govmail.ca.gov
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 916-445-3375.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,


WESLEY CHESBRO
Chair
WC/pc
cc: Kim Belshé

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1351-1400/sb_1365_bill_20040827_status.html

SB1760 !Talking Points! !!VETOED!!!

!Vetoed! Wednesday, September 29th
Reposting the Alert, the Ragged Edge Article, and the letter to the State Agencies so you can frame your comments.
Thank you for your continued support of this important legislation!
***
Sovereign Immunity, Disability Discrimination and Us
By Laura Williams
What is "sovereign immunity" and why should we care?
The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."
When the issue of racial equality emerged on the open battlefield in the middle of the last century, our leaders agreed that the pattern of discrimination by states themselves against racial minorities was so clear that it was "sufficient" to override states' sovereign immunity.
Why isn't it the same when the courts look at discrimination against persons with disabilities?
Sovereign immunity for individual states goes back to our very formation as a union of states. The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S.. Constitution gives individual states immunity from suits in federal court.
This immunity was -- and is -- very important. It means states are protected from tariff wars with each other; are protected from land and possession disputes between the states, are protected from suits from foreign nations and, to a limited extent, from suits by individuals.
These separations and immunities have served our union well.
But when the issue of racial equality emerged on the open battlefield in the middle of the last century, the executive and legislative branches of our government, and the Supreme Court, agreed that the pattern of discrimination by states themselves against racial minorities was so clear that it was "sufficient" to override -- "abridge" is the legal term used -- the sovereign immunity protection states enjoyed under the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, when it came to discrimination against racial minorities, states could be sued to ensure equal access to civil liberty for racial minorities.
Not only that; but states could be sued for all forms of of discrimination against persons of color. The courts did not require that the state be proven to discriminate against persons of color in all forms of discrimination. The fact that there was a "pattern" of discrimination by a state was accepted as valid reason for a suit.
Why isn't it the same when the courts look at discrimination and barriers to equal access for persons with disabilities?
Aside from the fact that the courts themselves have been at the fore of this type of discrimination and lack of access to equal justice, the fact is that persons with disabilities are not viewed as one group (a "discrete and insular" minority is the term the law uses) suffering from a wide pattern of discrimination.
That fact alone has allowed the courts, the states and the federal government to judge disability barriers at the minutiae level of contractual law rather than at the level of a broad-based civil rights law.
The American public may never come to regard people with disabilities seen as a "discrete and insular" minority, because we are disparate in so many ways. The many barriers we face are often not judged for what they are -- barriers -- but are seen as simply the products of our own inabilities.
Many Americans see our disabilities as the progenitor of discrimination. They do not see the barriers that lack of inclusion generates in every aspect of our daily living.
Over the next decades, we must work to change that perception. We must get the public to understand that it is not the wheelchair that is the problem, but the lack of a surface that can be safely traveled by wheels. It is not the blind eye that is the problem, but the lack of ensuring that every print publication be provided in alternative format at the time of issuance. It is not the problem of the learning disabled that they have been denied full inclusion and acceptance as American citizens by the populace at large.
There should be no barriers inserted when structures are designed, when programs implemented, when services at every level are provided -- barriers that later need removing. They should not be designed in the first place.
The barriers we face every day have been designed and inserted out of ignorance and lack of respect for differences within the American populace. Through design foresight and patterns of inclusion, we can participate fully in our American dreams.
Until then we must fight to preserve the Americans with Disabilities Act with our every breath and energy.
One way to do this is to ask each of our states to waive its immunity from ADA lawsuits.
A bill to waive California's immunity was introduced into the CA Assembly Feb. 20. The bill, known as SB 1760, would add a section to current law "stating that the State of California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." To learn more about the bill, go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html - type "SB 1760" into the query section.
Posted March 11, 2004.
Laura Morris Williams is president of Californians for Disability Rights.

***


An Open Letter to Justice Scalia
The Honorable Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States of America
Sir,
I have read the comments and opinions rendered by yourself and other members of the Supreme Court of the United States during the hearing of Tenn v. Lane. As a citizen of these United States, I am compelled to respond to certain of those comments and opinions.
"That depends on what is meant by the term
`discrimination,' " Justice Antonin Scalia said.
Mr. Clement replied that Congress had found examples of inaccessible polling
places that deprived people with disabilities of the right to vote.
"An inaccessible voting place proves nothing at all," Justice Scalia said. "It just
shows that the state didn't go out of its way" to provide help.
Clause 1: [Constitution of the United States]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
Sir, are you saying that when I as a person with a disability arrives at a polling place to excercise my right to vote, that when I cannot access the place where every other citizen in my voting district is exercising their right to vote, that when I am handed a provisional ballot at the bottom of a set of stairs, that provisional ballot not being countable as a vote as a normal course of events, that circumstance does not substantially violate my right to excercise the Privilege accorded to all other Citizens within my voting district, not otherwise impaired by physical or other disability to access the Poll, as afforded in the Constitution of these United States.
I was unaware Sir, that disabled citizens of these United States had been suborned to a second class citizenship, as not entitled to Constitutional protection of all Privileges of Citizens in the several States.
Sir, I can tell you that I expect to be able to personally deliver and place my vote in every election in my district, in every polling place and that any polling place and method of placing a vote that does not afford to every citizen a place and method that allows the right of a private vote for every citizen is a substantial limitation of privilege.
Sir, as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of these United States, I would further expect that you acknowledge that Citizens of these several States come in every color and every ability and having attained the age of 18, must have the full privilege to vote sustained by every court and the Supreme Court. To do less is unacceptable. To do less is unconstitutional. To do less is un-American.
Yet during arguments on January 13th, 2004:
**During Tuesday's argument, Justice Antonin Scalia said he saw no
constitutional reason why state agencies cannot discriminate against persons he
referred to as "handicaps." Some states "may not have made it easy for handicaps to
vote," he said, but that is not reason enough for Congress to subject states to
lawsuits, he said.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed.
And Further when Justice John Paul Stevens asks whether it's true that in 1975 more
than a million students were barred from public schools that were not handicapped-accessible,
and whether that violates the Constitution. Moore doesn't answer, but Scalia does:
"You don't concede that the Constitution is violated by not providing
educational facilities to all handicapped children?" he asks. All you need is a
"rational basis" for keeping them out, Scalia points out. "It's enough that the
cost would be excessive. So saying that so many handicapped students can't get
into schools means nothing at all."
But discriminating against persons with disabilities is in fact a long standing issue in
federal courts and the Supreme Court.
Federal courts, as a long-standing constitutional
protection, are exempt from laws passed by Congress, including the ADA.
Marcia Bristo, formally with the National Council on Disability, who uses a
wheelchair, remembers being told to wheel herself off to the side of the high
court during a 2001 hearing.
John Stanton, a deaf lawyer who does not know sign language, was told that his
real-time transcription device was not allowed in the
austere, marble-lined courtroom.
Jeff Rosen, legal counsel at the disability council, was hassled by court marshals, who said his sign-language interpreter might distract the justices. "They have a segregationist attitude in their
courtroom," said Rosen, who chose not to attend yesterday's hearing, saying he
did not want to confront the situation again. "Together with their opinions, which
have continuously narrowed the ADA since it was passed, I think it shows that
they really don't understand these issues."
Rosen said at least one deaf guest was told initially that she could not bring in her
transcription device, and got it approved only after a lawyer called the court's marshals. "If it were
someone else, who didn't have access to a lawyer to advocate for them, they might get
squashed," he said. "That's not fair." **
Justice Scalia, I call on you and every federal court to uphold the constitution of these United States and
afford every citizen the privileges accorded to citizens of the several States and recognize that these citizens come in every color and ability and that privilege cannot be limited by an individual's color or
ability.
To do less is unconstitutional. To do less in un-American.
Respectfully,
Laura Morris Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights
**Quotations are from many of the dozens of articles surrounding the January 13th, 2004 arguments
of Tenn V. Lane

California has responded to the very real risk of loss of protection under the ADA title II with SB1760,
Perata, Sovereign Immunity Waiver for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

***

Letter to State of California Agencies
Re: SB 1760 Sovereign Immunity Waiver
Dear Sirs and Madams,
The State of California has a long standing and well deserved reputation for upholding the rights and dignity of person’s with disabilities. That is a direct result of the hard work and response by the many and varied state agencies that oversee and administer the many programs and services to the citizens of this great state.

In the decades following the passage of section 504 of the rehab Act, Title 24 and the American’s with Disabilities Act, agencies have responded to and modified policy and procedure where to do so improved the delivery of service for person’s with disabilities.
We in the disability community wish to acknowledge and commend the effort. We in the disability community have been compelled by recent Supreme Court decisions to ask the State of California to waive sovereign immunity in application to the ADA.
Please allow me to address some concerns that have arisen in regards to SB 1760, Perata, Sovereign Immunity Waiver.
>Waiving immunity will tie the hands of state agencies.
There is nothing in the immunity waiver that restricts strong and appropriate defense to any action.
Justice is served when two parties can be heard in court and have the benefit of Judicial review.
>The State will be open to lawsuits.
The best defense are the proactive measures taken to ensure the appropriate delivery of services and
programs to person’s with disabilities.
>The State’s Attorney General is in place to defend agencies in court.
The AG is ALSO in place to defend the rights of the citizen’s of California and uphold and enforce
the law so that all persons are provided with appropriate program and service delivery.

I wish to thank you for your time and consideration
Best Regards,
Laura Williams, President
Californians for Disability Rights
Co-Sponsor of SB 1760

****Sample Letter - amened to address Governor

Dear Governor ____:

I am writing in support of SB1760 by Senator Don Perata, which waives the state's sovereign immunity claims with regard to suits in federal court under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This bill is on your desk for signature.

SB1760 would provide that the State of California consents to be sued in state or federal court by any person seeking to enforce rights or obtain remedies afforded by the ADA. Further, it prohibits any public agency involved in an action under the ADA to assert that they have any immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have interpreted the Eleventh Amendment as providing the state immunity from suits by individuals with disabilities who have been injured by discrimination in violation of the ADA. However, the court has made clear that the states are free to waive their immunity and consent to be sued by statute. It is the purpose of SB1760 to make it clear that the State of California waives this immunity, to achieve the intention of Congress in enacting the ADA. Congress intended to hold states accountable for discrimination against people with disabilities. In addition, California has long been a leader in protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities, and has not tried to immunize itself from responsibility under the ADA. I ask that you sign SB 1760, and thereby reaffirm the State's commitment to the civil rights of persons with disabilities. This is a very important issue for all persons with disabilities. Without an effective enforcement method, the ADA is a hollow promise.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this issue.

Sincerely,

AB1707 Judiciary !!VETOED!! Disability Access Denial Penalty

!UPDATE! VETOED with attached message. CDR SUPPORTED this measure.
It is with great regret that I must tell you the Governor has vetoed AB1707.
The text of his veto message appears below.
I think it speaks for itself, so I won't add any commentary at this point except to say that I think I know what kind of legislative proposals we can expect to see next year.
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE: This bill reveals the next lawsuit abuse problem in California that is likely to drive businesses out of the state. By quadrupling the minimum fines associated with unintentional violations under the Disabled Persons Act (DPA), the bill will have the effect of extorting money from state and local governments much the same way violations under the Unruh Act extort money from small businesses. Instead of providing incentives to correct violations in buildings and facilities to assist the disabled community this bill will cause the focus to revolve around litigation. Businesses are often faced with a lawsuit that has a potential to be financially damaging in defending or paying increased fines for mistakes such as the height of a sign that can be easily corrected. It is unfortunate that legislation, such as AB 209 (Leslie) that would reform the system did not make it through the legislative process. I would welcome legislation that would provide an avenue for businesses or governments to correct potential violations prior to being subjected to fines or civil liability. The public policy goal should be to ensure public and private facilities are open to those with disabilities, not to penalize businesses financially for unintended violations that can easily be corrected once put on notice.
Kevin G. Baker
CounselAssembly Judiciary Committee
--------------------------------
This bill has undergone significant changes from first proposal to very bad to back to original intent. The bill passed and sent to the Governor's desk makes the penalties in two sections of California code equal. CDR supports this version!

AB1801 Pavley !SIGNED! Guide/Assistance Dogs

!UPDATE! AB 1801 Signed Into Law! CDR Supported this measure.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 30, 2004
CONTACT: Sean PetersenTELEPHONE: (916) 319-2041
Pavley Bill Stiffens PenaltiesFor Attacks on Guide and Service Dogs(Woodland Hills, CA) - As hard as it is to imagine, working service dogs areall too often the victims of interference and attacks by other dogs that areallowed to run loose or whose owners will not control them. Service dogshave changed the lives and personal freedom of countless people who arefortunate enough to be partnered with these extraordinary animals.Incidents of attacks on the dogs and/or their owners can be devastating, andsome attacks have resulted in the early retirement or death of the dogs.
A bill to increase penalties for attacks on guide and service dogs was chaptered into law today, with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature.
AB 1801 authored by Assemblymember Fran Pavley and sponsored by theCalifornia Council for the Blind will go into effect January 1, 2005. "Myfamily has raised guide dog puppies," said Assemblymember Fran Pavley."Several of them have come back into our lives after being retired. Hearingthe horror stories about unprovoked and terrifying attacks on a service dogor its blind or disabled owner is very personal. I felt strongly that thepenalties for these totally avoidable incidents had to be strengthened. Thestories just kept coming in to my office."An Orange County resident with limited vision saw only a blur coming at himwhen a runner and large dog ran past him. The runner's dog attacked and therunner kept going, leaving behind the bleeding guide dog with a section ofits ear missing. Another person who was totally blind and dependent onguide dogs for 30 years could only feel and hear the savage attack going onand was powerless to do anything to stop it. Two Akitas nearly killed aMedical Companion dog in Simi Valley, forcing the dog into retirementbecause of its injuries."The passage of this legislation will greatly improve the ability of blindand visually impaired, and other individuals using guide, signal and otherservice animals to travel safely on our public rights-of-way," said DanKysor, Director of Governmental Affairs with the California Council of theBlind.AB 1801 does the following:. Expands coverage of the bill from just guide dogs to include signal dogs,service dogs, and mobility aids such as wheelchairs and walkers.. Increases the criminal penalties for a person who permits any dog, whichis owned by him or her, to cause injury to or the death of any guide,signal, or service dog. The crime can now be considered a misdemeanor ifthe person acted with reckless disregard in the exercise of control over hisor her dog.. Increases the penalties for any person who intentionally causes injury toor the death of any guide, signal, or service dog while the dog is acting inthe discharge of its duties to one year in the county jail, a maximum fineof $10,000, or both.. Allows restitution of monetary damages to be ordered by a court, includingveterinary bills, replacement costs or other costs deemed appropriate, ifthe dog is disabled or killed."There needed to be serious consequences when the owners of dogs behaverecklessly or callously, and change lives in such a terrifying anddevastating way. I was proud to author this bill," concluded Pavley.
--------------------------
The California Council of the Blind, CCB, the largest and oldest consumer advocacy organization of people who are blind and visually impaired in this state strongly urge your signature on AB1801, Pavley.
As sponsors of AB 1801, we know that people with disabilities including persons who are blind or visually impaired have the right to travel safely without interference from uncontrolled dogs and from humans. Increasingly, persons who are blind or visually impaired are subjected to incidents of interference and dog attacks. These incidents can and do result in physical and psychological injury to blind or visually impaired individuals andtheir guide dogs, which may result in the early retirement or death of these guide dogs. Similar incidents are also on the rise with respect to those with other disabilities.

California Council of the Blind
Dan Kysor
DirectorGovernmental Affairs
225 15th Street
West Sacramento, Ca. 95691

http://www.ccbnet.org

AB1138 Frommer !SIGNED! Parking Placard Certification Requirements

!UPDATE! Signed into Law! CDR OPPOSED this measure
This bill, on and after July 1, 2005, would require a disabledperson or disabled veteran issued a special license plate, uponrequest, to present to a peace officer, or person authorized toenforce parking laws, ordinances, or regulations, a certificationform, as prescribed by the department, that substantiates theeligibility of the disabled person or veteran to possess the plate. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, thisbill would impose a state-mandated local program.
------------
This bill places the burden of the abuse on the heads of placard and plate holders. It places the legitimate holders of the placards and plates in a position of being harrassed and confiscation of the plates or placards if the paper certification is not on the person! This bill will cost the State millions of Medicaid Dollars as every plate holder must get a new certificate signed by a doctor. Current law does not "require" a doctors signature when the disability is visable.

AB1629 Frommer !OPPOSE! "Nursing Home Rate Reform"

The State Council of Californians for Disability Rights Voted to Oppose the gut and amend AB1629. We want REAL reform with protections for the residents of nursing homes! We oppose the proposed [withdrawn] Tort Reforms, we oppose rate reform that does not include staffing wages, staffing levels and provisions for care for the residents.Laura Williams, PresidentCalifornians for Disability Rights.


!UPDATE! Press Release:
Non-partisan Legislative Analyst's office reports that AB 1629 Could Cost the State Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
Date:8/26/2004
LAO Report Slams Last-Minute Nursing Home Bill: AB 1629 Could Cost the State Hundreds of Millions of Dollars, says Legislative Analyst’s Office

SACRAMENTO—The California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued an analysis today of AB 1629 (Frommer), the gut-and-amend bill currently being rushed through the Legislature. The LAO report finds that AB 1629 could significantly increase the State’s General Fund obligations.

Among other things, the LAO report concludes that:

“The expiration of the quality assurance fee would result in the loss of the state’s ability to leverage federal funds, thereby resulting in increased General Fund spending on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, in order to continue to fund prior-year rate increases.”

--and—

“Establishing a rate floor [not a ceiling] for skilled nursing facilities limits the Legislature’s flexibility to achieve savings by reducing rates for Medi-Cal providers.”


“This report makes clear what AARP and others have been saying all along,” said AARP California Legislative Director Lupe De La Cruz. “AB 1629 is quite simply a money grab on the part of the nursing home industry and SEIU. The LAO report shows that this ‘blank check’ for nursing homes would be paid for by California taxpayers.”

AARP has strongly opposed AB 1629 on the grounds that guarantees profits to nursing homes, without requiring that any funds be spent on patient care. “As far as AARP is concerned,” said De La Cruz, “the top priority of the State of California should be the welfare of the people in the beds, not the profits of the nursing home operators and investors.”

The complete LAO report can found at www.aarp.org/ca.

###