AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 12, 2017AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 5, 2017AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 22, 2017AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 26, 2017AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 3, 2017AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 6, 2017AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2017
SENATE BILL No. 219
Introduced by Senator Wiener
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Chiu)(Coauthor: Assembly Member Cervantes)February 1, 2017An act to add Chapter 2.45 (commencing with Section 1439.50) toDivision 2 of, and to add and repeal Section 1338.4 of, the Health andSafety Code, relating to health facilities.
legislative counsel
’
s digest
SB 219, as amended, Wiener. Long-term care facilities: rights of residents.Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the StateDepartment of Public Health of health facilities, including skillednursing facilities and intermediate care facilities. A violation of theseprovisions is a crime. Existing law, the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety,and Security Act of 1973, imposes various requirements on long-termhealth care facilities, as defined, and prescribes the civil penaltiesassessed for a violation of those requirements.
92
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the ElderlyAct, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilitiesfor the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Underexisting law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully orrepeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guiltyof a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for aviolation of the act.Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makesit unlawful to discriminate against any person in any housingaccommodation on the basis of, among others, sex, gender, genderidentity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and TransgenderLong-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things,the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-termcare facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, genderexpression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including,among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’spreferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferredname and pronouns and
or pronouns, or
denying admission to along-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a residentwithin a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting aresident from a facility. The bill would also provide certain protectionsto all residents of long-term care facilities during, among others,
other things,
physical examinations or treatments, relating to bodily privacy.The bill would define long-term care facility for purposes of theseprovisions to include skilled nursing facilities, intermediate carefacilities, and residential care facilities for the elderly. The bill wouldalso, among other things, require each facility to post a specified noticeregarding discrimination alongside its current nondiscrimination policyin all places and on all materials where the nondiscrimination policy isposted. The bill would require a violation of these provisions to betreated as a violation under the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, andSecurity Act of 1973, the California Residential Care Facilities for theElderly Act, or specified provisions providing for the licensure andregulation of health facilities, which may include the imposition of civilpenalties. By expanding the definition of existing crimes, the bill wouldimpose a state-mandated local program.
92
—
2
—
SB 219
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse localagencies 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 actfor a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a)
In 2006, the California Legislature found that “lifelong line 4 experiences of marginalization place lesbian, gay, bisexual, and line 5 transgender (LGBT) seniors at high risk for isolation, poverty, line 6 homelessness, and premature institutionalization. Moreover, many line 7 LGBT seniors are members of multiple underrepresented groups, line 8 and as a result, are doubly marginalized. Due to these factors, many line 9 LGBT seniors avoid accessing elder programs and services, even line 10 when their health, safety, and security depend on it.” line 11 (b)
Recent studies confirm the state’s findings and provide line 12 evidence that LGBT seniors experience discrimination, including line 13 in long-term care facilities where residents are particularly line 14 vulnerable because they must rely on others for necessary care and line 15 services, and may no longer enjoy the privacy of having their own line 16 home or even their own room. line 17 (c)
According to “Stories from the Field: LGBT Older Adults line 18 in Long-Term Care Facilities,” a 2011 study published by the line 19 National Senior Citizens Law Center, these issues have gone line 20 unaddressed. In that study, 43 percent of respondents reported line 21 personally witnessing or experiencing instances of mistreatment line 22 of LGBT seniors in a long-term care facility, including all of the line 23 following: being refused admission or readmission, being abruptly line 24 discharged, verbal or physical harassment from staff, staff refusal line 25 to accept medical power of attorney from the resident’s spouse or line 26 partner, discriminatory restrictions on visitation, and staff refusal line 27 to refer to a transgender resident by his or her preferred name or line 28 pronoun. Eighty-one percent of respondents believed that other line 29 residents would discriminate against an LGBT elder in a long-term line 30 care facility, 89 percent of respondents believed that staff would
92
SB 219
—
3
—