Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
California bill would let providers enroll unhoused Californians into full‑service mental‑health programs immediately
Summary
A bill before the Senate Health Committee would create presumptive eligibility for full‑service partnerships to speed access to behavioral health care for people with severe mental illness who are homeless or cycling through jails and hospitals. Supporters said delays can cost lives; county officials warned of implementation concerns.
Assemblymember Maggie Krell introduced Assembly Bill 348 to the Senate Health Committee, saying the bill would “streamline access to care by creating presumptive eligibility” for vulnerable Californians with serious mental illness who are unhoused, incarcerated, or repeatedly hospitalized. The bill’s sponsor, the Steinberg Institute, and former Senate pro tem Darrell Steinberg urged the committee to move the measure forward.
The bill would let providers enroll people into Full Service Partnerships (FSPs) while eligibility and county administrative steps are resolved, supporters said, so care can begin immediately. Darrell Steinberg, founder of the Steinberg Institute, told the committee, “It would allow the provider, without the consent or permission of the county, to enroll somebody while all the eligibility issues are being worked out.” He traced the proposal to prior state efforts including AB 34 and the Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63), and said only about 40% of current FSP slots serve people experiencing homelessness — the population the programs originally targeted.
The bill drew broad institutional support in the hearing from medical, justice and advocacy groups including the California Medical Association, the California District Attorneys Association, the League of California Cities, and the California Behavioral Health Association. Supporters said earlier intervention through FSPs reduces hospitalizations, jail stays and days spent homeless.
County behavioral‑health officials raised concerns. Amara Sheid of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association said her group had an “opposed and less amended” position and urged further negotiations; Kelly Brooks of Los Angeles County likewise said LA County wants to keep working with the author. Committee members pressed the author on standardization and potential unintended effects. Senator Gonzales asked whether the bill could “make it more difficult to handle all the possibilities” and urged addressing counties’ implementation questions.
Krell and supporters said the core intent is to return to the original focus of FSPs and reduce long delays — Krell cited reports of 90‑day waits in some places — by setting objective criteria (for example homelessness, recent 5150 holds, or release from jail) that would trigger presumptive enrollment.
The committee moved the bill forward. Motion language recorded in the hearing indicated the item was moved as "do pass" and to be referred to the Committee on Appropriations; the committee roll calls placed the item "on call" during quorum calls and later recorded the item as out with a favorable vote count during the meeting. The bill was advanced from the Senate Health Committee for further consideration.
Context and next steps: AB 348 would change the way counties and providers admit people into FSPs, but supporters and county officials said implementation details and county workflows still need negotiation. If the bill advances, counties and behavioral‑health providers will likely request clarifying regulations or guidance on enrollment mechanics, funding flows and data sharing.
