Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which health care services are provided to qualified low-income persons pursuant to a schedule of benefits, which includes pharmacy benefits, through various health care delivery systems, including fee-for-service and managed care. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to contract with a vendor for the purposes of surveying drug price information, collecting data from providers, wholesalers, or drug manufacturers, and calculating a proposed actual acquisition cost. Existing law authorizes the department to establish a list of maximum allowable ingredient cost for generically equivalent drugs, and to establish the actual acquisition cost based on 3 specified factors, including the volume weighted actual acquisition cost adjusted by the department to verify that the actual acquisition cost represents the average purchase price paid by retail pharmacies in California, or the proposed actual acquisition cost as calculated by a vendor, as specified. Existing law requires the department to establish a fee schedule for the list of pharmacist services. Existing law specifies the pharmacist services that may be provided to a Medi-Cal beneficiary. This bill would require the department to provide a disease management or similar payment to a pharmacy that the department has contracted with to dispense a specialty drug to Medi-Cal beneficiaries in an amount necessary to ensure beneficiary access, as determined by the department based on the results of the survey completed during the 2020 calendar year.
Existing law prohibits an employer from ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment, as defined, unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice to affected employees, as specified. Under existing law, an employer who fails to give the necessary notice is liable to employees who were entitled to notice who lost their jobs for back pay and the value of the cost of benefits, as specified. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes in the provisions relating to employer liability described above.
The California Hospice Licensure Act of 1990 requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate the persons or agencies that provide hospice services to an individual who is experiencing the last phase of life due to a terminal disease, and their family. The act imposes criminal penalties on any person who violates any provision of the act or any rule or regulation promulgated under the act. This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to the provisions imposing criminal penalties.
The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act of 2016 (AUMA) , an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. MAUCRSA imposes various requirements on the transportation and delivery of cannabis and cannabis products. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to the transportation and delivery of cannabis and cannabis products in this state.
Existing law requires the Emergency Medical Services Authority to develop and implement guidelines that address designated components for emergency medical services systems. Existing law allows the authority to establish guidelines for hospital facilities according to critical care capabilities in cooperation with affected medical organizations. This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to this provision.
The California Constitution generally limits ad valorem taxes on real property to 1% of the full cash value of that property. For purposes of this limitation, "full cash value" is defined as the assessor's valuation of real property as shown on the 1975–76 tax bill under "full cash value" or, thereafter, the appraised value of that real property when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Existing law specifies those circumstances in which the transfer of ownership interests in a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity results in a change in ownership of the real property owned by that entity, and generally provides that a change in ownership as so described occurs if a legal entity or other person obtains a controlling or majority ownership interest in the legal entity. Existing law requires the Franchise Tax Board to include a question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership under the circumstances described above has occurred. This bill would additionally specify that if 90% or more of the direct or indirect ownership interests in a legal entity are sold or transferred in a single transaction, as defined, the real property owned by that legal entity has changed ownership whether or not any one legal entity or person that is a party to the transaction obtains control, as defined. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to include an additional question on returns for partnerships, banks, and corporations to assist in the determination of whether a change in ownership as so described has occurred. The bill would require the State Board of Equalization to prescribe regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this act. The bill would also require the State Board of Equalization to report to the Legislature, no later than January 1, 2024, regarding the implementation of these changes in ownership, including, but not limited to, the revenue impact and frequency of reassessments of real property owned by legal entities. The bill would require the Legislative Analyst's Office to report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2024, regarding the economic impact of this bill. Existing law requires, upon a change in control or change in ownership of a legal entity that owns an interest in real property in this state, or when requested by the State Board of Equalization, that the person or legal entity acquiring ownership or control, or the legal entity that has undergone a change in ownership, file a change in ownership statement with the board, as specified. Existing law requires a penalty of 10% of the taxes applicable to the new base year value, as specified, or 10% of the current year's taxes on the property, as specified, to be added to the assessment made on the roll if a person or legal entity required to file a change in ownership statement fails to do so, including a change in ownership of a floating home. This bill would require a person or legal entity acquiring ownership interests in a legal entity, if 90% or more of the ownership interests in the legal entity are sold or transferred, as described above, to file a change in ownership statement signed under penalty of perjury with the State Board of Equalization. The bill would increase the penalties for failure to file a change in ownership statement, as described above, from 10% to 15%, would provide that the penalty shall apply for failure to file a complete statement with the State Board of Equalization following a transfer of legal entity ownership interests, but would eliminate the application of these penalties to a change in ownership of a floating home. This bill would require the State Board of Equalization to notify assessors if a change in control or a change in ownership of a legal entity has occurred. By expanding the crime of perjury and by imposing new duties upon local county officials with respect to changes in ownership, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, added by Proposition 184, approved at the November 8, 1994, statewide general election, and amended by the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, approved as Proposition 36 at the November 6, 2012, statewide general election, commonly known as the Three Strikes Law, imposes additional years of imprisonment in state prison on a person who commits a serious or violent felony and has been convicted of, or who has a prior conviction for, a serious or violent felony. A prior juvenile adjudication constitutes a prior serious or violent felony conviction for purposes of this sentence enhancement if the juvenile was 16 years of age at the time and other requirements are met. The Legislature may directly amend these initiatives by a statute passed in each house by a 23 vote, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the voters. This bill would amend those initiative statutes by prohibiting a prior juvenile adjudication from being considered a prior serious or violent felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement. The bill would provide a means of vacating a prior juvenile conviction enhancement and resentencing a defendant on any remaining counts when specified conditions apply, including when the alleged prior conviction occurred when the defendant was a juvenile and the case was adjudicated in juvenile court. By requiring the participation of district attorneys and public defenders in the resentencing process, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law declares that any provision in a written instrument relating to real property that purports to forbid or restrict the conveyance, encumbrance, leasing, or mortgaging of that real property to any person because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status, is void. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.
Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, authorizes the Governor to proclaim a state of emergency, and local governments to proclaim a local emergency, when specified conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety of persons and property exist, and authorizes the Governor or the local government to exercise certain powers in response to that emergency. Existing law grants immunity to the state and its political subdivisions for any claim based upon the exercise or performance, or the failure to exercise or perform, a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state or local agency or any employee of the state or its political subdivisions in carrying out the California Emergency Services Act. Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health, headed by the State Public Health Officer, and sets forth its powers and duties, including the administration of provisions relating to the prevention and control of communicable disease. Existing law authorizes the department to adopt and enforce regulations requiring strict or modified isolation, or quarantine, for any of the contagious, infectious, or communicable diseases, if in the opinion of the department the action is necessary for the protection of the public health. On March 4, 2020, the Governor proclaimed a state of emergency in response to the 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Pursuant to specified provisions relating to the prevention and control, the State Public Health Officer ordered all individuals living in the state to stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors, as outlined in the United States Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency's guidance on the essential critical infrastructure workforce. Pursuant to authority under specified provisions of the California Emergency Services Act, the Governor issued Executive Order No. N-33-20 requiring all residents to immediately heed those state public health directives. This bill, the Religion is Essential Act, would, during a state of emergency or local emergency, require the Governor or the local government to deem religious services to be an essential service and to be necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from taking a discriminatory action against a religious organization, as those terms are defined, and would require the state and local government to permit a religious organization to continue operating and engaging in religious services during a state of emergency to the same or greater extent that other organizations or businesses that provide essential services that are necessary and vital to the health and welfare of the public are permitted to operate. The bill would prohibit the state and local government from enforcing any health, safety, or occupancy requirement that imposes a substantial burden on a religious service unless the state or local government demonstrates that applying the burden to the religious service is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. This bill would authorize a religious organization to assert a violation of these provisions as a claim against the state or a local government in a judicial or administrative proceeding or as a defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, as specified. The bill would entitle a religious organization that successfully asserts a claim or defense to certain relief, as specified. The bill would make related findings and declarations. By imposing additional duties on a local government in the exercise of emergency powers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs the terms and conditions of residency in mobilehome parks. Under existing law, the management of a mobilehome park may not terminate or refuse to renew a tenancy, except pursuant to certain procedures, and upon giving written notice to the homeowner of not less than 60 days. This bill would prohibit the management from terminating or attempting to terminate the tenancy of a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, on the grounds of failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement during a declared state of emergency or local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and during a 120-day time period after the state of emergency or local emergency is terminated, except as provided. The bill would also require that any complaint for unlawful detainer against a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic clearly state on the first page of the complaint that it is subject to additional protections, as provided. The bill would also prohibit the management, during this timeframe, from issuing a notice relating to termination of tenancy or refusal to renew tenancy. Existing law prohibits management from terminating a tenancy except for one of specified reasons, including, but not limited to, failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park, as specified. Under existing law, an act or omission of the homeowner or resident does not constitute a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park until the management has given the homeowner written notice of the alleged rule or regulation violation and the homeowner or resident has failed to adhere to the rule or regulation within 7 days, except as specified. This bill would require that a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, have 7 days from the date they receive a notice of a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park described above to notify the management in writing of their need to have additional time to comply with the notice. The bill, with exceptions, would require management that receives the described notice to grant the homeowner or resident the additional time requested to comply with the rule or regulation, but in no event more than 6 months. The bill would require a notice of a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement, as specified, issued during a declared state of emergency or local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and during a 120-day time period after the state of emergency or local emergency is terminated, to contain specified language describing these provisions, printed in at least 12-point boldface type at the top of the notice. The bill would also require a court to dismiss a case without prejudice, as provided, if the case was brought for failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park, as specified, and the homeowner or resident files a signed declaration with the court stating that failure to comply with the reasonable rule or regulation of the park was due to impacts of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Because declarations filed with the court are submitted under penalty of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program by expanding the scope of a crime. Existing law authorizes the management to file a petition for an order to enjoin a continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable rule or regulation of the mobilehome park within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court of the county in which the mobilehome community is located. This bill would prohibit the management, with exceptions, from seeking to enforce such an order or imposing rent increases or other charges in addition to what is included in the resident's base rent. The bill would authorize a homeowner or resident who is prevented by management from exercising the rights provided here to bring a civil action and would authorize a court to order injunctive relief and other relief the court deems proper, as specified. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies 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 act for a specified reason. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission has regulatory authority over public utilities. Existing law includes legislative findings that public utilities have dedicated a portion of their utility pole support structures to cable television corporations for pole attachments and declares that the provision by public utilities of surplus space and excess capacity for pole attachments is a public utility service delivered by public utilities to cable television corporations and is in the interests of the people of California. Under existing law, whenever a public utility and a cable television corporation or association of cable television corporations are unable to agree upon the terms, conditions, or annual compensation for pole attachments or the terms, conditions, or costs of rearrangements, the commission is required to establish and enforce the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments and rearrangements so as to ensure a public utility the recovery of specified funds. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.
Existing law, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. Existing law, the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. MAUCRSA generally divides responsibility for the state licensure and regulation of commercial cannabis activity among the Bureau of Cannabis Control in the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the State Department of Public Health. MAUCRSA, until January 1, 2022, authorizes a licensing authority, in its sole discretion, to issue a provisional license if the applicant has submitted a completed license application to the licensing authority, including evidence that compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or local cannabis ordinances is underway, if applicable, as specified. This bill would make nonsubstantive changes to the provisions authorizing a licensing authority to issue provisional licenses.
