The State Bar Act provides for the licensure and regulation of attorneys by the State Bar of California, a public corporation governed by a board of trustees. Existing law authorizes the board of trustees to establish an examining committee, also known as the Committee of Bar Examiners, and requires an applicant for a license to practice law to pass the general bar examination, known as the California bar examination, given by the examining committee. Existing law prohibits the examining committee from altering the bar examination in a manner that requires the substantial modification of the training or preparation required for passage of the examination, except after giving 2 years' notice of that change. This bill would require the Committee of Bar Examiners to provide a report to the board of trustees, the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, and to the Assembly and Senate Committees on Judiciary on whether adopting a uniform bar examination would be more efficient to administer and lower the cost of administration for the State Bar and examinees. The bill would repeal those provisions on January 1, 2030.
Existing law, the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act, categorizes controlled substances into 5 schedules and places the greatest restrictions on those substances contained in Schedule I. Under existing law, the substances in Schedule I are deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use while substances in Schedules II through V are substances that have an accepted medical use, but have the potential for abuse. Existing law generally restricts the prescription, furnishing, possession, sale, and use of controlled substances, and makes a violation of those laws a crime, except as specified. Existing law categorizes chorionic gonadotropin, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) , as a Schedule III controlled substance except when the hCG is possessed by, sold to, purchased by, transferred to, or administrated by, a licensed veterinarian or a licensed veterinarian's designated agent, exclusively for veterinary use. This bill would remove hCG from the list of Schedule III controlled substances under the California Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
(1) Existing law, the Massage Therapy Act, provides for the certification and regulation of massage professionals by the California Massage Therapy Council, which is a private nonprofit organization governed by a board of directors composed of 13 members. Existing law requires one member to be appointed by the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, and authorizes the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools to appoint one member. Existing law requires one member to be a certified massage therapist or a certified massage practitioner who is a California resident who has practiced massage for at least 3 years before appointment and is selected by a specified professional society, association, or other entity the membership of which is composed of massage therapist professionals, and that chooses to participate in the council. This bill would remove the above-described appointment of one member by the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, and would limit the appointment authority of the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools by requiring that their appointed member represent an approved massage school. The bill would add an additional member who is a certified massage therapist or a certified massage practitioner who is selected by a specified professional society, association, or other entity, as described above, and would make conforming changes related to that provision. Existing law authorizes the council to take any reasonable actions necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties set forth in the Massage Therapy Act, including hiring staff. This bill would prohibit the total annual salary for any individual employed or contracted by the council from exceeding the annual salary provided to certain state officers during that fiscal year. Existing law requires the council to issue a certificate to practice massage therapy to an applicant who meets specified qualifications, including that the applicant has successfully completed at least 500 hours in the curricula in massage and related subjects, as specified, from approved schools. Existing law requires the council to determine whether the school from which an applicant has obtained their education meets the requirement of the Massage Therapy Act. If the council has any reason to question whether or not the applicant received that education from the school or schools that the applicant is claiming, existing law requires the council to investigate the facts to determine that the applicant received the education before issuing the certificate. This bill would authorize, instead of require, the council to conduct that investigation regarding the applicant's education, as described above. The bill would require an applicant who meets all of the other requirements for certification and who received the instruction described above at an approved school that was not under formal investigation at the time at which the applicant began instruction but was subsequently placed under investigation by the council to, as a condition of certification, have the opportunity for an interview or educational hearing, as specified, provided that their application for certification was submitted to the council no more than 90 days from the date of a final decision by the council to revoke the school's approval. The bill would require the council to issue a certificate to any applicant who successfully passes the interview or hearing, provided that the school at which the applicant completed the instruction was a school approved by the council within 90 days from the date the applicant submitted their application for certification and was considered to be in good standing, as specified, at the time the applicant passed the interview or hearing. Existing law, beginning January 1, 2027, also requires an applicant to pass a massage and bodywork competency assessment examination that meets generally recognized psychometric principles and standards and that is approved by the council, as specified. The bill would remove the requirement that an applicant pass a massage and bodywork competency assessment examination as described above, and would require an approved massage school, upon each student's completion of curriculum at the massage school, to provide notice to the student that the massage and bodywork competency assessment examination is not a requirement for certification but may be required for licensure or certification as a massage therapist in any other state. Existing law requires a certificate holder to notify the council within 30 days of any changes in the certificate holder's home address or the address of any massage establishment or other location where the certificate holder provides massage for compensation, except as specified. This bill would also require a certificate holder to notify the council within 30 days of any changes in the certificate holder's legal name. Existing law makes it a violation of the Massage Therapy Act for an applicant or certificate holder to commit certain acts, and makes the commission of those acts grounds for the council to deny an application for a certificate or to impose discipline on a certificate holder. Those acts include being convicted of any felony, misdemeanor, infraction, or municipal code violation, providing massage of female breasts without the written consent of the person receiving the massage and a referral from a licensed California health care provider, and dressing in certain attire or manners while engaged in the practice of massage for compensation, or while visible to clients in a massage establishment as specified. This bill would specify that the council may take action for a conviction, as described above, when the time for appeal has elapsed, the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence. The bill would define a "conviction" for these purposes to mean a judgment following a plea or verdict of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or a finding of guilt. The bill would also revise and recast the above-described acts that are considered a violation of the Massage Therapy Act. In this regard, the bill would remove the requirement of a referral from a licensed California health care provider to provide massage of female breasts. The bill would remove the list of prohibited attire or manners of dressing while engaged in the practice of massage for compensation, or while visible to clients in a massage establishment, except that the bill would maintain the prohibition on dressing in a manner that is deemed by the council to constitute unprofessional attire based on the custom and practice of the profession in California. The bill would also include among those specified acts that are considered a violation the determination of being a threat to public safety based on mental health reasons by a medical or mental health professional, or the rendering of a finding of not guilty in a criminal proceeding by reason of insanity. Existing law authorizes a board to deny a license on the grounds that the applicant has been convicted of a crime or was subject to formal discipline within the preceding 7 years from the date of application based on professional misconduct that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the present application is made, as specified and subject to certain exceptions. This bill would require the denial of an initial certificate to practice massage therapy on the grounds that the applicant has been convicted of a crime or has been subject to formal discipline as provided under the act to be consistent with the above-described provisions authorizing a board to deny a license on certain grounds. Existing law requires the council to follow specified procedures for deciding upon and imposing the denial of a certificate or the discipline of a certificate holder under the Massage Therapy Act. Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, the council to provide an opportunity for the applicant or certificate holder to be heard, orally or in writing, not less than 5 days before the effective date of the denial or discipline, by a person or body authorized to decide whether the proposed denial or discipline should go into effect. This bill would require the person or body authorized to make that decision to be qualified. The bill would authorize an applicant or certificate holder to request an appeal of a final decision of the council to deny a certificate or discipline a certificate holder by submitting a request in writing within 30 days of the date of the final decision. In this regard, the bill would require a request to appeal a final decision to be considered by a committee of the board of directors within 120 days of the final decision, as specified. If a request to appeal is granted, the bill would require the appeal of the final decision to be heard at the next board of directors meeting, as specified, that is at least 120 days from the date that the request to appeal was granted, except as specified. The bill would require the council to notify the applicant or certificate holder of its right to request an appeal pursuant to these provisions at the time of the final decision. Existing law requires the council to develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the requirements and processes for approving, denying approval of, imposing corrective action on, or unapproving schools from which applicants obtain their education, as specified. Existing law requires the council, on or before one year from the date the council receives an initial application for approval as a school, to approve the school, propose to deny approval of the school, or notify the school that corrective action is required, and authorizes the council to deny the application of a school that fails to adequately rectify the deficiencies. Existing law authorizes a school to appeal the council's final decision to deny approval of the school, and requires the appeal to be heard at the next board of directors meeting, as specified. This bill would require the council to notify the school of its right to appeal pursuant to these provisions at the time of the final decision. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that, among other things, the Massage Therapy Act enables consumers and local government to more easily identify certified massage professionals and provide for consistent statewide certification and oversight of massage professionals. Existing law repeals the Massage Therapy Act on January 1, 2026. This bill would also state the intent of the Legislature that, among other things, both state and local regulation of massage therapy reflect the recognized status of certified massage professionals as health care providers. The bill would instead repeal the act on January 1, 2030. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act imposes various requirements on a state body holding a meeting subject to the act, including, among other things, requiring the state body to provide notice of its meeting to any person who requests that notice in writing. The Massage Therapy Act requires meetings of the council to be subject to the rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and authorizes the board to adopt additional policies and procedures that provide greater transparency to certificate holders and the public than required by the act. This bill would, except as otherwise provided in the Massage Therapy Act, require meetings of the council to be governed by either Rosenberg's Rules of Order or Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The bill would require the council to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation in the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws that substantially impact the rights, benefits, privileges, duties, obligations, or responsibilities of individuals or entities subject to certification or approval by the council, including, among other things, actions by the council to increase fees. In this regard, the bill would require the council, at a minimum, to publish the complete text of any policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws proposed for adoption, amendment, or repeal along with a summary of the changes being considered for a period of at least 45 calendar days before the adoption, amendment, or repeal, and to accept written public comments during the 45-day period and allow further public comment during a meeting held for these purposes. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. This bill would require the council, beginning July 1, 2027, and to the extent practicable, to make the records of the council available for public inspection in a manner consistent with the California Public Records Act, as specified, and would authorize the council to charge for the direct costs of responding to requests for records, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009, which provides for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary educational institutions, as defined, in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires an institution with an approval to operate under the act that knows that it is being investigated by an oversight entity other than the bureau to report that investigation, as defined, to the bureau in writing within 30 days of the institution's first knowledge of the investigation, and requires an institution with an approval to operate under the act that is the subject of a judgment by, a regulatory action by, increased oversight or monitoring by, or a settlement with, any oversight entity other than the bureau to report it to the bureau within 30 days. Existing law defines "oversight entity" for these purposes to include, among other entities, a governmental agency. This bill would also include any private entity authorized pursuant to any provision of the Business and Professions Code to approve schools or educational programs for purposes of a professional certification as an "oversight entity" for the above-described purposes.
Existing law requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to establish standards for the issuance and renewal of credentials, certificates, and permits. Existing law sets forth the minimum requirements for a preliminary services credential with a specialization in administrative services, which include, among other requirements, possession of one of various types of credentials and the completion of either an entry-level program of specialized and professional preparation in administrative services or a one-year internship in a program of supervised training in administrative services, as provided. This bill would limit the above-described one-year internship programs to those provided by a school district, county office of education, or regionally accredited institution of higher education. The bill would require the commission to examine its preservice, professional development, and supervision requirements for those internship programs when the commission next considers administrative services credential pathways. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 44270 of the Education Code proposed by AB 1009 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1009 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of daycare centers and family daycare homes by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, the use of a home as a small or large family daycare home is considered a residential use of property and a use by right for the purposes of all local ordinances, including zoning ordinances, and a local jurisdiction is prohibited from imposing a business license, fee, or tax for the privilege of operating a small or large family daycare home. Existing law also exempts small and large family daycare homes from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. This bill would similarly require a daycare center, as defined, when colocated with multifamily housing, to be considered a residential use of property and a use by right, as defined. The bill would similarly prohibit a local jurisdiction from imposing a charge, tax, or fee for a business license, equivalent instrument, or permit for the privilege of operating a daycare center that is colocated with multifamily housing. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
(1) Existing law governs the hiring of residential dwelling units. Existing law, the Tenant Protection Act of 2019, prohibits, until January 1, 2030, an owner of residential real property from terminating the tenancy of certain tenants without just cause, either at-fault or no-fault of the tenant, and requires just cause for terminating a tenancy to be stated in the written notice to terminate tenancy. The act requires an owner of residential real property subject to these provisions to provide the above-described notice to a tenant subject to specified requirements, including, for any tenancy commenced or renewed on or after July 1, 2020, as an addendum to the lease or rental agreement, or as a written notice signed by the tenant, with a copy provided to the tenant, except as specified. This bill would allow the above-described notice to be provided in the lease or rental agreement. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires an owner of an assisted housing development, as defined, that is within 3 years of a scheduled expiration of rental restrictions or a scheduled termination of a subsidy contract to provide notice of the scheduled expiration or termination to any prospective tenant at the time the prospective tenant is interviewed for eligibility, to existing tenants, as specified, and to affected public entities, as defined. This bill would require a notice of a scheduled expiration of rental restrictions or a scheduled termination of a subsidy contract described above to remain posted until the expiration or termination has occurred, and would make technical changes relating to these provisions. Existing law requires an owner of an assisted housing development, at least 12 months prior to the anticipated date of the termination of a subsidy contract, the expiration of rental restrictions, or prepayment on an assisted housing development, to provide a notice of the proposed change to each affected tenant household residing in the assisted housing development at the time the notice is provided and to the affected public entities, as specified. Existing law also requires an owner of an assisted housing development proposing to terminate a subsidy contract, or prepay the mortgage, or sell or otherwise dispose of the assisted housing development to provide a notice of the opportunity to offer to purchase, as provided. Existing law requires the notice of the opportunity to purchase to be given before or concurrently with the notice of the proposed change described above, as specified. This bill would specify that the notice of the opportunity to purchase is required to be given before or concurrently with the 12-month notice of the proposed change, as specified. Existing law requires that the initial notice of a bona fide opportunity to submit an offer to purchase contain certain information, including a statement addressing, among other things, whether the owner has an interest in selling the property. Existing law also requires that the initial notice include a statement that specified types of entities, or any combination of them, have the right to purchase the development under these provisions. This bill would delete the requirement that the initial notice include a statement addressing whether the owner has an interest in selling the property. The bill would also clarify that the initial notice include a statement that the specified types of entities, as described above, have the right to submit a bona fide offer to purchase the development. Existing law prescribes various requirements to be satisfied before the exercise of a power of sale under a mortgage or deed of trust and prescribes a procedure for the exercise of that power, including, among other things, that a trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents, first file for record, in the office of the recorder of each county wherein the mortgaged or trust property or some part or parcel thereof is situated, a notice of default, as specified. Existing law requires the mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of sale to mail the notice to specified individuals, including the office of the Controller, Sacramento, California, where, as of the recording date of the notice of default, a "Notice of Lien for Postponed Property Taxes" has been recorded against the real property to which the notice of default applies. This bill would additionally require the mortgagee, trustee, or other person authorized to record the notice of default or the notice of sale to mail the notice to the office of the Director of Housing and Community Development, Sacramento, California, and the office of the Executive Director of the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Sacramento, California, where, as of the recording date of the notice of default, a use restriction, as defined, has been recorded against the real property to which the notice of default applies. The bill would prohibit any failure to comply with the above-described provisions from affecting the validity of a trustee's sale or a sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser. (3) Existing law, the Zenovich-Moscone-Chacon Housing and Home Finance Act, prohibits "affordable rent" for certain rental housing developments that receive assistance on or after January 1, 1991, from exceeding a specified percentage based on the area median income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit and whether the household is an acutely low income household, extremely low income household, very low income household, lower income household, or moderate-income household. Existing law, for a rental housing development that dedicates 80% of units to lower income households, as specified, prohibits affordable rent from exceeding the rent prescribed by deed restrictions or regulatory agreements pursuant to the terms of public financing or public financial assistance for the rental housing development, if the rental housing development receives specified awards on or after January 1, 2025. This bill would instead, for an above-described rental housing development that dedicates at least 80% of units to lower income households, as specified, prohibit affordable rent from exceeding an amount consistent with the maximum rent levels for lower income households, as those rents and incomes are determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee. By revising the limit on "affordable rent" for certain housing developments, thereby revising the duties of local government officials with respect to administering various programs and requirements that require a determination of "affordable rent," this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) Existing law requires the Department of Housing and Community Development, through its Office of Migrant Services, to assist in the development, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or operation of migrant farm labor centers, as provided. Existing law requires the department to develop a report that analyzes the feasibility and impact of transitioning housing units at Office of Migrant Services centers to year-round availability, and to submit that report to specified committees of the Legislature by July 1, 2027, as provided. Existing law, by December 31, 2028, and following completion of that report, requires the department to coordinate with the Department of General Services and the Department of Food and Agriculture to identify available excess sites in proximity to migrant farm labor centers. This bill would specify that, for the purposes of these provisions, the term "available excess sites" refers to prescribed previously identified sites, as provided. (5) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1946.2 of the Civil Code proposed by SB 522 to be operative only if this bill and SB 522 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (6) 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 establishes the Aid to Families with Dependent Children-Foster Care (AFDC-FC) program, under which counties provide payments to foster care providers on behalf of qualified children in foster care. Existing law establishes a schedule of basic rates to be paid for the care and supervision of each foster child. Existing law also establishes the Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program (Kin-GAP) , which provides aid on behalf of eligible children who have a kinship guardianship, and the Approved Relative Caregiver Funding Program (ARC) , which provides payments to approved relative caregivers who are caring for children and nonminor dependents who are ineligible for AFDC-FC payments. Existing law requires, when a child is living with a parent who receives AFDC-FC or Kin-GAP benefits, or ARC payments, that the rate paid to the foster care provider on behalf of the parent include an additional monthly supplement of $489 for the care and supervision of the child, subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act. This bill would require, beginning July 1, 2026, that supplement to be adjusted for inflation. To the extent the bill would impose new requirements on counties administering the AFDC-FC or Kin-GAP benefits or ARC payments, 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law defines a battery as any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another. Existing law provides that when a battery is committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, and the person who commits the offense knows or reasonably should know that the victim is engaged in the performance of their duties, the penalty is imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both the fine and imprisonment. Existing law also provides that if the victim is injured, the offense would be punished by a fine not exceeding $10,000, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison for 16 months, 2, or 3 years, or by both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would expand this crime to apply to an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law authorizes any employer or collective bargaining representative whose employee has suffered harassment, unlawful violence, or a credible threat of violence from any individual, which can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, to seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction on behalf of the employee and other employees of the employer. This bill would clarify that "unlawful violence" includes battery committed against the person of an operator, driver, or passenger on a bus, taxicab, streetcar, cable car, trackless trolley, or other motor vehicle, as specified, or against an employee, public transportation provider, or contractor of a public transportation provider. The bill would also clarify that the definition of "employer" for the above-described provision includes a joint powers authority or a public transit operator. 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.
Existing federal law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, provides for the negotiation and execution of tribal-state gaming compacts for the purpose of authorizing certain types of gaming on Indian lands within a state. The California Constitution authorizes the Governor to negotiate and conclude those compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature. Existing law expressly ratifies a number of tribal-state gaming compacts, and amendments to tribal-state gaming compacts, between the State of California and specified Indian tribes. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, as defined, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. This bill would ratify the amendment to the tribal-state gaming compact entered into between the State of California and the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California. The bill would provide that, in deference to tribal sovereignty, certain actions related to this amended compact are not projects for the purposes of CEQA. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
(1) Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, requires the California State Board of Pharmacy within the Department of Consumer Affairs to license and regulate the practice of pharmacy, including pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacies. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to appoint an executive officer to exercise certain powers and to perform certain duties delegated by the board, as specified. Existing law repeals the provisions establishing the board and authorizing the appointment of an executive officer on January 1, 2026, rendering the board subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would provide that the board has exclusive authority to administer and enforce the Pharmacy Law related to the practice of pharmacy and the licensing of pharmacists and pharmacies, and would specify that its provisions do not prohibit the board from evaluating or acting regarding unlicensed activity, as provided. The bill would extend the repeal date of the above-described provisions to January 1, 2030. The bill would additionally require the board to establish a Pharmacy Technician Advisory Committee to advise and make recommendations to the board, as specified. Existing law specifies the fees for issuance or renewal of licenses issued pursuant to the Pharmacy Law, including, among others, pharmacy licenses. This bill would require the board to waive the application fee for a pharmacy operating a physical location in a medically underserved area, as defined, and would authorize the board to waive the fee for the annual renewal of a license if the licensee provides the board with certification of continued operation in the medically underserved area. (2) Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to perform various procedures and functions, including those related to dispensing or furnishing drugs or devices, as specified. Existing law generally requires a pharmacist's dispensing or furnishing drugs to be done pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided in specified circumstances. Those exceptions include furnishing an FDA-approved opioid antagonist, emergency contraception drug therapy, self-administered hormonal contraceptives, nicotine replacement products, certain medications for individuals traveling outside of the United States, and certain HIV medications, as specified. Existing law requires certain conditions to be met for a pharmacist to authorize the initiation of a prescription under certain of those exceptions or to otherwise provide clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation. This bill would revise and recast the above-described provisions to authorize a pharmacist to, among other things, furnish dangerous devices, to furnish FDA-approved or authorized medications as part of preventative health care services that do not require a diagnosis, as specified, and to complete missing information on a prescription for a noncontrolled medication if there is evidence to support the change. The bill would require that a pharmacist provide those and other specified services or activities consistent with the accepted standard of care, defined to mean the degree of care a prudent and reasonable pharmacist licensed under the Pharmacy Law, with similar education, training, experience, resources, and setting, would use in a similar situation. The bill would make nonsubstantive, conforming changes. Existing law requires the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation that a pharmacist provides to be provided to a health care professional or to a patient. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to provide the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation to a patient's agent. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a pharmacist to furnish COVID-19 oral therapeutics, as defined, following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in accordance with specified requirements. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending this authorization indefinitely. Existing law prohibits a dangerous drug from being refilled without the authorization of the prescriber, except under specified circumstances. Under those circumstances, existing law requires a pharmacist to make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that the pharmacist make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to dispense not more than a 90-day supply of a dangerous drug other than a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription that specifies an initial quantity of less than a 90-day supply followed by periodic refills of that amount if certain requirements are met. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist from dispensing a greater supply pursuant to that provision if the prescriber indicates that there is to be no change to the quantity of the refill, as specified. This bill would remove that prohibition. Existing law authorizes a pharmacy to dispense epinephrine auto-injectors to a prehospital emergency medical care person or lay rescuer for the purpose of rendering emergency care, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described authorization. (3) Existing law authorizes a licensed pharmacist to perform additional functions if the licensee is recognized by the board as "an advanced practice pharmacist" by meeting certain requirements. Those additional functions include, among others, performing patient assessments, ordering and interpreting drug therapy-related tests, and initiating, adjusting, or discontinuing drug therapy, as specified. The requirements for recognition as an advanced practice pharmacist include having completed a combination of specified certifications, postgraduate residencies, or experience under a collaborative practice agreement or protocol with a physician. Existing law also requires an advanced practice pharmacist to complete 10 hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education otherwise required at the time of a second or subsequent license renewal. This bill would revise those and other related provisions to refer to those licensees as "advanced pharmacist practitioners," instead of as "advanced practice pharmacists." (4) Existing law prohibits any person from furnishing or dispensing any dangerous drug or device on the internet for delivery to any person in California without a prescription issued pursuant to a "good faith prior examination," as provided. This bill would instead refer to that examination as an "appropriate prior examination." (5) Existing law authorizes the board to issue citations containing fines and orders of abatement for violations of specified law, as provided. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action against a chain community pharmacy under common ownership or management for fines for a violation of the Pharmacy Law that was expressly encouraged by the common owner or manager, as provided. This bill would instead apply those fines for a violation that was expressly encouraged by any owner or manager of the chain community pharmacy. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law within 5 years by 3 or more pharmacies operating under common ownership or management within a chain community pharmacy, as specified. Existing law provides a pharmacy with a defense if it establishes that the violation was contrary to a written policy that was communicated by the common owner or manager to all employees where the violation occurred. Existing law also provides a defense if the pharmacy establishes that, within 6 months after the violation, the common owner or manager corrected all unlawful policies, communicated the change in policies, and provided the board with proof of abatement of the violation, as specified. This bill would, for the defense that the violation was contrary to a written policy, also require the entity to establish that it has complied with the policy. The bill would revise the above-described corrective-actions defense by allowing those actions to be undertaken by any owner or manager of the pharmacy. The bill would additionally authorize the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law against a mail order pharmacy, defined as a nonresident pharmacy that dispenses medications and ships them to patients via the postal service or other mail delivery method, as provided. The bill would require the board, in determining the amount of the fine, to consider mitigating and aggregating factors, as specified. (6) Existing law prohibits the board from issuing a pharmacy license to a person who has a shared community or financial interest with a person authorized to prescribe or write a prescription, as provided. This bill would establish an exception to the above-described prohibition under which the applicant and the prescriber would be required to provide statements that the prescriber disavows any community or financial interest in the license and to transmute any interest in the license that is shared community property into the separate property of the applicant, as provided. The bill would prohibit a pharmacy granted a license pursuant to this exception from filling any prescriptions issued or prescribed by a person who shares a community or other financial interest with the licensee or a prescriber at the same place of business as that person if the prescriber owns an interest greater than 10% in the practice issuing the prescription. Existing law authorizes the board to issue a retired license to a licensed pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the holder of a retired license to restore their license to active status by passing the examination that is required for initial licensure with the board. This bill would instead authorize the holder of a retired license to request to restore their license to active status within 3 years of issuance of the retired license by paying a renewal fee and successfully completing certain continuing education within the 2 years preceding the request, as specified. If more than 3 years have elapsed since the issuance of the retired license, the bill would require the holder of the retired license to reapply for licensure as a pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime or subjected to formal discipline that would be grounds for denial of a federal registration to distribute controlled substances. This bill would also authorize the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime involving fraud in violation of state or federal laws related to health care or involving financial identity theft. Existing law requires certain licensed facilities to perform a self-assessment evaluating compliance with specified provisions of the Pharmacy Law, as provided. This bill would require all licensed facilities to complete a self-assessment every odd-numbered year and within 30 days of certain changes to the license, management personnel, and location, as provided. The bill would require this self-assessment to be signed under penalty of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by expanding the crime of perjury. (7) Existing law requires a pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge and notify the board within 30 days of that designation, as specified. Existing law authorizes the pharmacist-in-charge to, among other things, make staffing decisions and notify store management of dangerous conditions, as specified. This bill would require the pharmacist-in-charge to determine the appropriate pharmacist-to-technician ratio, within prescribed limits, and prohibit anyone else from interfering with the exercise of the pharmacist-in-charge's independent professional judgment in setting this ratio. The bill would additionally require the pharmacist-in-charge to notify the owner or hospital administrator of dangerous conditions, as specified. Existing law provides for the licensing of nonresident pharmacies, as specified. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist at a nonresident pharmacy whose license has been revoked from prescribing a dangerous drug or providing other pharmacy-related services, as specified. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2026, require a nonresident pharmacy, as a prerequisite to registering with the board and ongoing licensure, to identify a California-licensed pharmacist employed and working at the nonresident pharmacy to be proposed to serve as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would also require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days of designating a pharmacist-in-charge, to notify the board of the identity and license number of that pharmacist and the date they were designated, as specified. The bill would require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days, to notify the board of a pharmacist-in-charge ceasing to act as the pharmacist-in-charge and to propose another pharmacist to take over as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would additionally, beginning July 1, 2026, prohibit a nonresident pharmacy from permitting a pharmacist-in-charge who is not licensed in California from working at a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would authorize the board to inspect a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would require a nonresident pharmacy to deposit a reasonable amount, as determined by the board, necessary to cover the board's estimated reasonable costs of performing the inspection, as specified. (8) Existing law limits a pharmacy with only one pharmacist to one pharmacy technician performing packaging, manipulative, repetitive, or other nondiscretionary tasks. This bill would increase this limit to 3 pharmacy technicians performing those tasks. (9) Existing law requires a pharmacy to preserve certain records, as provided. This bill would require a pharmacy to additionally maintain records related to prescribed policies and procedures in a readily retrievable format. The bill would also impose requirements related to electronically maintained records. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4064.5 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 418 to be operative only if this bill and SB 418 is enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 260 to be operative only if this bill and AB 260 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Compulsory Education Law, generally makes persons between the ages of 6 and 18 years of age subject to compulsory full-time education, unless exempted. Existing law makes a parent or guardian of a pupil of 6 years of age or more who is in kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 8, inclusive, and subject to compulsory full-time or continuing education, whose child is a chronic truant, as defined, who has failed to reasonably supervise and encourage the pupil's school attendance, and who has been offered support services to address the pupil's truancy, guilty of a misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year, or both that fine and imprisonment. This bill would repeal that criminal offense.
Existing law requires elections officials to begin mailing ballots to every registered voter no later than 29 days before an election. Existing law authorizes a jurisdiction to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes and, if the jurisdiction has the necessary computer capability, vote by mail ballots 29 days before an election. This bill would authorize elections officials to begin processing vote by mail ballot return envelopes and vote by mail ballots on the date on which the ballots are mailed, thereby allowing elections officials to begin processing vote by mail return envelopes and ballots earlier than 29 days before an election. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 15104 of the Elections Code proposed by SB 3 to be operative only if this bill and SB 3 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
