California 2013-2014 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 1571 — Residential care facilities for the elderly: licensing and regulation.

Last action — From Senate committee without further action.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law requires any person seeking a license for a residential care facility for the elderly to file an application with the department, as specified. Among other required application information, if the applicant is a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company, evidence of reputable and responsible character is required to be submitted as to the members or shareholders thereof, and the person in charge of the residential care facility for the elderly for which the application for issuance of license or special permit is made. This bill would, among other things, delete the above requirement to submit evidence of reputable and responsible character as to members or shareholders of a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company and the person in charge of the facility, and instead would require the applicant to disclose whether the licensee is a for-profit or not-for-profit provider, the names and license numbers of other facilities owned, managed, or operated by the same licensee, and the names and addresses of any persons or organizations listed as owner of record in the real estate, including the buildings and grounds appurtenant to the buildings. The bill would require an applicant to provide additional information, including, but not limited to, the applicant's history of compliance with the requirements imposed under specified facility licenses or a similarly licensed facility, applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and requirements governing the operators of those facilities. The bill would also require that specified applicant information be cross checked with the State Department of Public Health to determine if the applicant has a prior history of operating, holding a position in, or having ownership in, specified licensed facilities. Existing law requires the Director of Social Services to establish an automated license information system on licensees and former licensees of licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. The system is required to maintain a record of any information that may be pertinent for licensure. A violation of the provisions of the act is a crime. This bill would require the department, among other things, by July 1, 2015, to post on its Internet Web site residential care facility for the elderly profiles, with specified data. The bill would require, upon completion of a new community care licensing data system, or as soon as the current data system permits, each licensee of a residential care facility for the elderly to submit a profile of resident characteristics to the department on an annual basis, including, but not limited to, the number of residents in the facility who are bedridden, nonambulatory, receiving hospice care, have one or more allowable health conditions, have one or more restricted or prohibitive health conditions, or who have dementia. The bill would also require the department to develop and implement a ratings system by July 1, 2019, as provided. Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes the department to deny any application for a residential care facility for the elderly license or to suspend or revoke those licenses on certain grounds, including, but not limited to, a violation by the licensee of applicable provisions or of the rules and regulations adopted under those provisions, conduct that is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility or the people of the state, or engaging in acts of financial malfeasance concerning the operation of a facility. This bill would require the department to deny an application for licensure or authorize it to subsequently revoke a license on the grounds that the applicant knowingly made a false statement of fact with regard to information that was required by the application for licensure, and would authorize the department to deny an application for licensure or subsequently revoke a license on the grounds that the applicant did not disclose enforcement actions on the application as required. The bill would also authorize the department to deny an application for licensure on the grounds that the applicant has a history of noncompliance with the requirements imposed under specified facility licenses or a similarly licensed facility in another state, applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and the requirements governing the operators of those facilities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. From Senate committee without further action.

  2. In committee: Held under submission.

  3. In committee: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  4. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  5. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 4. Noes 0.) (June 24).

  6. Referred to Com. on HUMAN S.

  7. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  8. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 72. Noes 1. Page 5240.)

  9. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  10. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  11. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) .

  12. Joint Rule 62(a), file notice suspended. (Page 5065.)

  13. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  14. In committee: Hearing postponed by committee.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  16. Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  17. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. Read second time and amended.

  18. Referred to Com. on HUM. S.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee March 2.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

  • Block · Cosponsor
  • Eggman · Primary
  • Hall · Cosponsor
  • Skinner · Cosponsor
  • Lisa Calderon · Cosponsor
  • Mark Stone · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 5 co-sponsors · 116 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Eggman

Co-sponsors (5)

Not signed on (116)

116 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 116 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

AB 1571 EGGMAN Assembly Third Reading

Passed 72 Yea · 1 Nay · 6 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 65106
Democratic 4000
Republican 3000
Total 72106
% of votes cast 91%1%0%8%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Achadjian — Yea
Alejo — Yea
Ammiano — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Brown — Yea
Harkey — Yea
Levine — Yea
Mansoor — Not Voting
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Buchanan — Yea
Hagman — Yea
Lowenthal — Yea
Linder — Yea
Logue — Yea
Garcia — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Gray — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Yamada — Yea
Fong — Yea
Gordon — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Hall — Yea
Holden — Yea
Medina — Yea
Olsen — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
John A. Pérez — Yea
Salas — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Campos — Yea
Allen — Nay
Melendez — Yea
Mullin — Yea
Nestande — Yea
Pan — Yea
Chau — Yea
Chesbro — Yea
Bigelow — Not Voting
Chávez — Yea
Conway — Not Voting
Cooley — Yea
Dickinson — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Perea — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Ting — Yea
Weber — Yea
Williams — Yea
Dababneh — Yea
Daly — Yea
Fox — Yea
Frazier — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Gorell — Yea
Beth Gaines — Not Voting
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Lorena Gonzalez — Yea
Mark Stone — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
V. Manuel Pérez — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 13 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 12003
Democratic 1000
Republican 0001
Total 13004
% of votes cast 76%0%0%24%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Bigelow — Not Voting
Bradford — Yea
Linder — Yea
Pan — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Weber — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bocanegra — Yea
Campos — Yea
Donnelly — Not Voting
Wagner — Not Voting
Eggman — Yea
Gatto — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety healthcare labor
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 1571 do?
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law requires any person seeking a license for a residential care facility for the elderly to file an application with the department, as specified. Among other required application information, if the applicant is a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company, evidence of reputable and responsible character is required to be submitted as to the members or shareholders thereof, and the person in charge of the residential care facility for the elderly for which the application for issuance of license or special permit is made. This bill would, among other things, delete the above requirement to submit evidence of reputable and responsible character as to members or shareholders of a firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation, or company and the person in charge of the facility, and instead would require the applicant to disclose whether the licensee is a for-profit or not-for-profit provider, the names and license numbers of other facilities owned, managed, or operated by the same licensee, and the names and addresses of any persons or organizations listed as owner of record in the real estate, including the buildings and grounds appurtenant to the buildings. The bill would require an applicant to provide additional information, including, but not limited to, the applicant's history of compliance with the requirements imposed under specified facility licenses or a similarly licensed facility, applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and requirements governing the operators of those facilities. The bill would also require that specified applicant information be cross checked with the State Department of Public Health to determine if the applicant has a prior history of operating, holding a position in, or having ownership in, specified licensed facilities. Existing law requires the Director of Social Services to establish an automated license information system on licensees and former licensees of licensed residential care facilities for the elderly. The system is required to maintain a record of any information that may be pertinent for licensure. A violation of the provisions of the act is a crime. This bill would require the department, among other things, by July 1, 2015, to post on its Internet Web site residential care facility for the elderly profiles, with specified data. The bill would require, upon completion of a new community care licensing data system, or as soon as the current data system permits, each licensee of a residential care facility for the elderly to submit a profile of resident characteristics to the department on an annual basis, including, but not limited to, the number of residents in the facility who are bedridden, nonambulatory, receiving hospice care, have one or more allowable health conditions, have one or more restricted or prohibitive health conditions, or who have dementia. The bill would also require the department to develop and implement a ratings system by July 1, 2019, as provided. Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes the department to deny any application for a residential care facility for the elderly license or to suspend or revoke those licenses on certain grounds, including, but not limited to, a violation by the licensee of applicable provisions or of the rules and regulations adopted under those provisions, conduct that is inimical to the health, morals, welfare, or safety of either an individual in or receiving services from the facility or the people of the state, or engaging in acts of financial malfeasance concerning the operation of a facility. This bill would require the department to deny an application for licensure or authorize it to subsequently revoke a license on the grounds that the applicant knowingly made a false statement of fact with regard to information that was required by the application for licensure, and would authorize the department to deny an application for licensure or subsequently revoke a license on the grounds that the applicant did not disclose enforcement actions on the application as required. The bill would also authorize the department to deny an application for licensure on the grounds that the applicant has a history of noncompliance with the requirements imposed under specified facility licenses or a similarly licensed facility in another state, applicable state and federal laws and regulations, and the requirements governing the operators of those facilities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 1571?
AB 1571 is sponsored by Block, Eggman, Hall, Skinner, Calderon, Lisa (Democratic), and Mark Stone.
What is the current status of AB 1571?
This bill died with 2013-2014 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Assembly” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 1571?
Track AB 1571 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 1571

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of AB 1571

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →