California 2021-2022 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB864

Introduced
1/20/22  
Introduced
1/20/22  
Refer
2/2/22  
Refer
2/2/22  
Refer
2/14/22  
Refer
2/14/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Report Pass
3/24/22  
Refer
3/28/22  
Engrossed
5/9/22  
Engrossed
5/9/22  
Refer
5/12/22  
Refer
5/12/22  
Report Pass
6/15/22  
Report Pass
6/15/22  
Refer
6/15/22  
Report Pass
6/29/22  
Report Pass
6/29/22  
Enrolled
8/4/22  
Enrolled
8/4/22  
Chaptered
8/22/22  
Chaptered
8/22/22  

Caption

General acute care hospitals: drug screening.

Impact

The implementation of SB 864 represents a shift in the responsibilities of healthcare facilities in California. By requiring hospitals to test for fentanyl as part of their standard diagnostic processes, the bill seeks to elevate the standards of patient care while also aiming to identify and address potential opioid addiction in patients at an early stage. However, the bill has implications for hospital practices, increasing the scope of testing and possibly leading to additional operational challenges. Importantly, the bill specifies that no reimbursement will be required from the state for any costs incurred due to this new mandate.

Summary

Senate Bill 864, known as Tyler's Law, mandates that general acute care hospitals conduct urine drug screenings for fentanyl when treating patients. This requirement is effective until January 1, 2028, and is designed to enhance the detection of fentanyl use among patients, thereby addressing growing concerns about the opioid crisis. The bill is rooted in a broader context of public health measures aimed at mitigating the effects of substance abuse, particularly in healthcare settings where early detection could lead to better patient outcomes.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 864 appears largely supportive, particularly in light of the ongoing public health crisis related to opioid overdoses. Advocates argue that the bill represents a proactive and necessary step in combating fentanyl-related incidents, aligning with broader public health goals. Nonetheless, there may be some concerns regarding the potential burden this requirement places on hospitals, particularly smaller facilities that may struggle with the additional operational costs and logistics of implementing drug screenings.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the lack of financial reimbursement from the state for hospitals that incur additional costs to implement the mandated screenings. Opponents may argue that this requirement could disproportionately affect smaller hospitals or rural healthcare providers that already operate with limited resources. Additionally, while the intent is to improve healthcare outcomes, discussions may arise regarding patient privacy and the implications of mandatory drug testing within medical settings.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB2899

General acute care hospitals: licensed nurse-to-patient ratios.

CA AB1450

Behavioral health: behavioral health and wellness screenings: notice.

CA AB1936

Maternal mental health screenings.

CA AB632

Health care coverage: prostate cancer screening.

CA AB3103

Dependent children: health screenings.

CA AB2271

St. Rose Hospital.

CA AB2556

Behavioral health and wellness screenings: notice.

CA AB1164

Hospitals: emergency departments: crowding score.

CA SB45

California Acute Care Psychiatric Hospital Loan Fund.

CA SB1250

Privacy: genetic testing: newborn screening.

Similar Bills

CA AB2341

Criminal procedure: sentencing credits.

CA AB675

Controlled substances.

CA AB2336

Controlled substances: armed possession: fentanyl.

CA SB325

Controlled substances: fentanyl.

CA SB226

Controlled substances: armed possession: fentanyl.

CA AB461

Student safety: fentanyl test strips.

CA AB1841

Student safety: opioid overdose reversal medication: student housing facilities.

CA SB997

Pupil health: opioid antagonists and fentanyl test strips.