Alcohol and other drug programs: consumer protection platform.

In both Section 11832.55(h) and Section 11834.13(h), the phrase 'the designated quality rating system, consumer protection platform' was changed to 'the designated consumer protection platform.' This removes the requirement that programs and facilities demonstrate registration with a separate quality rating system as part of compliance verification, narrowing the documentation the department can require.

The legislative counsel's digest corrected a duplicated word ('platform platform' became 'platform') and removed the vote, appropriation, fiscal committee, and state-mandated local program lines that appeared in the amended version.

Legislative findings and declarations added to both sections explaining that DMC-ODS contracted facilities face comprehensive accountability (CalOMS Tx reporting, DATAR, onsite monitoring, network adequacy certification, value-based payment) while privately operated facilities have no equivalent public transparency mechanism.

A formal definition of 'consumer protection platform' is added requiring it to be: free to consumers, independent from provider payments, grounded in peer-reviewed research, equipped with validation protocols, transparent about clinical practices, capable of displaying consumer reviews, and required to refer quality-of-care concerns to regulators.

A new provision requires the platform (if managed by an entity other than the department) to collect and publicly display each provider's adoption of evidence-based practices, specifically: personalized evaluation and treatment planning, access to FDA-approved medications for opioid or alcohol use disorder, evidence-based behavioral therapies, long-term treatment and recovery support, co-occurring disorder coordination, additional recovery services, filtering by language/substance/accessibility/specialty population, and patient/family reviews.

The compliance verification provision is expanded to require documentation of participation in both the 'designated quality rating system' and the 'consumer protection platform,' broadening what the department can check during licensing or certification renewal.

The exemption from mandatory platform participation is expanded in both sections (11832.55 and 11834.13) to cover not only programs and facilities contracted for Medi-Cal or county services, but also any that receive funding through state, county, or federal substance use disorder programs.

A new provision allows exempted programs and facilities to voluntarily participate in the consumer protection platform even though they are not required to do so.

A new subsection (b)(3) in both sections requires that all costs of the platform (development, implementation, operation, maintenance, oversight, auditing, and enforcement) be fully covered by collected fees or specifically appropriated funds, and prohibits subsidizing those costs through increases to existing certification or licensing fees. If sufficient funding is not available without such fee increases, participation shall not be required.

The prohibition on using platform participation as an evaluation criterion is expanded in both sections to include 'network participation' and 'reimbursement' in addition to the previously listed 'bids, proposals, or contract performance.'

The term 'public quality rating system consumer protection platform' is shortened to 'public consumer protection platform' throughout the bill, removing the 'quality rating system' descriptor from the main text.

The term 'public quality rating system' is replaced throughout with 'public quality rating system consumer protection platform,' reframing the bill's purpose from quality measurement to consumer protection.

The department may now either designate an existing system or design a new one ('designated or designed'), giving it broader flexibility in how the platform is established.

New subsections (f) in both Section 11832.55 and 11834.13 prohibit participation in the consumer protection platform from being used as a criterion in evaluating bids, proposals, or contract performance for publicly funded substance use disorder treatment services.

Exemptions for programs and facilities contracted to provide Medi-Cal services or contracted with state/county agencies are strengthened from 'shall not apply' to 'does not apply,' with an added explicit statement that exempted entities 'shall not be required to participate in a consumer protection platform.'

The conflict-of-interest prohibition on the platform administrator is narrowed to apply only when the department contracts an external administrator, rather than applying to any administrator of the system.

The amendment to Section 11832.6 (which dealt with certification validity periods and renewal procedures) is removed entirely; the bill now only adds new sections rather than amending existing ones.

The fiscal committee vote changes from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now requires fiscal committee review, likely due to the fee provisions and platform cost implications.

New Section 11832.55 requires alcohol or other drug programs to participate in a public quality rating system designated by the State Department of Health Care Services in order to be certified or have certification renewed.

New Section 11834.13 imposes the same public quality rating system participation requirement on alcohol or other drug treatment facilities as a condition of licensing or license renewal.

Both new sections exempt programs contracted to provide Medi-Cal treatment services or contracted with the department, a county behavioral health department, or a county substance use disorder division for substance use disorder services.

Participation in the quality rating system is only required if the department determines that sufficient funding has been appropriated or otherwise secured to cover platform operation and maintenance costs. The department may charge a reasonable fee to covered programs and facilities to cover implementation costs.

The fiscal committee answer changed from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the amended bill now has a state fiscal impact due to the new quality rating system requirements.

The administrator of the public quality rating system is prohibited from accepting payment from the entities subject to these provisions, creating a conflict-of-interest safeguard.

The department may verify compliance with quality rating system participation during initial certification/licensing or renewal, require programs and facilities to provide documentation or data demonstrating participation, and use audits or inspections as necessary.

Both new sections authorize the department to implement, interpret, or make specific the provisions via provider bulletins, written guidelines, or similar instructions, bypassing the Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking process.