California Assembly Bill AB1550

California 2019-2020 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/22/19
• Refer: 3/28/19
• Report Pass: 3/28/19
• Refer: 4/1/19
• Report Pass: 4/29/19
• Refer: 5/1/19
• Refer: 5/8/19
• Report Pass: 5/16/19
• Engrossed: 5/29/19
• Refer: 5/30/19
• Refer: 6/12/19
• Report Pass: 6/27/19
• Refer: 6/27/19
• Report Pass: 7/10/19
• Refer: 7/10/19
• Refer: 8/12/19
• Report Pass: 8/30/19
• Refer: 6/29/20
• Refer: 7/2/20

Caption

Discriminatory emergency calls.

Impact

By amending laws related to mental health services under the Medi-Cal program, AB 1550 aims to improve access to critical psychiatric care, thereby enhancing the response rate for individuals in crisis. This approach not only complies with health standards but also seeks to ensure patients are appropriately cared for when inpatient facilities are unavailable. On the other hand, the bill introduces specific civil penalties aimed at those who misuse emergency services for discriminatory reasons, thereby reinforcing state policies against racial and other forms of discrimination.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1550, introduced by Assembly Member Bonta, addresses two main issues: the provision of crisis stabilization services for psychiatric patients and the handling of discriminatory emergency calls. The bill allows certified crisis stabilization units to provide essential services to individuals for a period exceeding the standard 24 hours under certain conditions, ensuring that patients receive necessary care before transitioning to inpatient treatment. It also establishes a legal framework to empower individuals subject to racially motivated 911 calls regarding their rights, enabling them to seek damages if such calls cause harm.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 1550 appears to reflect a positive consensus among mental health advocates who believe extending service time is vital for patient recovery. However, discussions about the legal ramifications of discriminatory calls highlight deeper societal tensions regarding race relations and policing. While some Lamar the potential positive outcomes of creating a path for legal recourse, others express concerns that this could lead to misuse of the legal system or increase tensions between communities and law enforcement.

Contention

The most notable contention arises from the balancing act the bill aims to achieve. Advocates for mental health positions emphasize the urgent need for extended crisis stabilization services to avoid unnecessary hospitalizations, while opponents question the implications of providing broad authority to sue for discriminatory emergency calls, fearing it could lead to frivolous lawsuits. The discussions around the bill illustrate a clash between improving mental health services and addressing systemic issues in emergency response concerning race and bias.