Existing law, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act, requires the State Department of Developmental Services to contract with regional centers to provide services and supports to individuals with developmental disabilities, including intellectual disabilities and other conditions, and their families. Under existing law, the regional centers purchase needed services and supports for individuals with developmental disabilities through approved service providers, or arrange for their provision through other publicly funded agencies. Existing law defines "services and supports for persons with developmental disabilities" to mean specialized services and supports or special adaptations of generic services and supports directed toward the alleviation of a developmental disability, or toward the social, personal, physical, or economic habilitation or rehabilitation of an individual with a developmental disability, or toward the achievement and maintenance of an independent, productive, and normal life. Under existing law, specialized medical and dental care are included within that definition. This bill, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, would require the department, no later than July 1, 2027, to contract with a public or private California dental school or college to administer the Oral Health for People with Disabilities Technical Assistance Center Program to improve dental care services for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities by reducing or eliminating the need for dental treatment using sedation and general anesthesia. The bill would require the department to prioritize contracting with a public California dental school or college to administer the program. The bill would authorize the contracted California dental school or college to partner with a public or private dental school or college, and would require the schools to meet certain criteria relating to location, accreditation, and a demonstrated record of working with regional centers. The bill would require the contracted school or partnership, among other responsibilities, to work with the department to engage up to 21 regional centers to participate, provide practical experience, systems development, and expertise in relevant subject areas, to train, monitor, and support regional center and oral health personnel, and to collect and analyze program data with the support of participating regional centers and oral health providers. The bill would require the department to submit an annual report of the collected data to the Legislature, and to provide guidance and establish protocols to support the program, among other things. The bill also would specify regional center duties, including identifying consumers who can benefit from the program, and establishing vendor agreements with interested oral health professionals.
Existing law finds and declares that prenatal care, delivery service, postpartum care, and neonatal and infant care are essential services necessary to assure maternal and infant health, and that these services are not currently distributed so as to meet the minimum maternal and infant health needs of many Californians. Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to develop and maintain a statewide community-based comprehensive perinatal services program, as specified, to deliver services in medically underserved areas or areas with demonstrated need. Existing law provides for the licensure of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals, by the department. Existing law generally makes a violation of those licensing provisions a crime. Existing law sets forth provisions for critical access hospitals, as designated by the department and certified as such by the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the federal Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility Program. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2026, to establish a 10-year pilot project within up to 5 critical access hospitals to allow participating hospitals, on an application basis, to establish standby perinatal services, as defined. Under the bill, the first 2 hospitals selected, if qualified, would be nonprofit and located in the County of Humboldt and the County of Plumas. The bill would set forth various criteria for the selection of the participating hospitals with regard to standards and resources. The bill would require the department to develop a template to collect and evaluate data on safety, outcomes, utilization, and populations served under the pilot project, as specified. The bill would require the department to prepare and submit an evaluation to the Legislature and to make the evaluation publicly available. Under the bill, an approved standby perinatal service would be subject to all relevant licensing enforcement provisions, as specified. The bill would set forth provisions relating to suspension or revocation for noncompliance and to a hospital's request for program flexibility. The bill would require a hospital requesting approval to establish a standby perinatal service to implement and maintain certain requirements relating to, among other things, compliance with professional standards and recommendations, having specified equipment and supplies, defining the responsibility of the medical staff and administration, implementing contracts, and developing a quality improvement program. The bill would set forth specific requirements for a physician who has responsibility of the standby perinatal services. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the County of Humboldt and the County of Plumas. 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 Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act, authorizes specified adult persons to petition a civil court to create a voluntary CARE agreement or a court-ordered CARE plan and implement services, to be provided by county behavioral health agencies, to provide behavioral health care, including stabilization medication, housing, and other enumerated services, to adults who are currently experiencing a severe mental illness and have a diagnosis identified in the disorder class schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, and who meet other specified criteria. Existing law authorizes a specified individual to commence the CARE process, known as the original petitioner. Existing law authorizes the court to dismiss a case without prejudice when the court finds that a petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that they qualify for the CARE process. Existing law requires the court to take prescribed actions if it finds that a prima facie showing has been made, including, but not limited to, setting the matter for an initial appearance on the petition. Existing law requires the court, if it determines the parties have entered or are likely to enter into a CARE agreement, to either approve or modify the CARE agreement and continue the matter at a progress hearing in 60 days, or continue the matter for 14 days to allow the parties additional time to enter into an agreement. Existing law prohibits a person from being tried or adjudged to punishment while that person is mentally incompetent. Existing law requires the court to, for a person found mentally incompetent and not charged with certain offenses, among other things, determine whether restoring the person to mental competence is in the interests of justice. Existing law requires the court to, if restoring the person to mental competence is not in the interests of justice, conduct a hearing, as specified, and determine the person's eligibility for diversion. Under existing law, if the court determines, at the first hearing, that the person is ineligible for diversion, the court is required to hold a hearing to determine the person's other options, including the CARE program. Existing law authorizes a court to refer an individual from, among other things, assisted outpatient treatment or conservatorship proceedings, as specified, to CARE Act proceedings. Existing law provides that if the individual is referred from assisted outpatient treatment, the county behavioral health director or their designee shall be the petitioner, whereas if the referral is from conservatorship proceedings, the conservator or proposed conservator is the petitioner. This bill would allow the court to make a prima facie determination without conducting a hearing. The bill, in the first hearing to determine competence to stand trial, would authorize the court to consider the petitioner's eligibility for both diversion and the CARE program. The bill would authorize the court to refer the petitioner to the CARE Act court if the defendant or counsel for the defendant agrees to the referral and the court has reason to believe the petitioner may be eligible for the CARE program. If the petitioner is not accepted into the CARE program or if the CARE Act court refers the petitioner back to criminal court, as specified, the bill would require the criminal court to conduct a hearing to determine whether the petitioner is eligible for a diversion program. The bill would authorize the county behavioral health agency and jail medical providers to share confidential medical records and other relevant information with the court for the purpose of determining likelihood of eligibility for behavioral health services and programs. The bill would authorize the court to call additional progress hearings after 60 days. The bill would also include persons suffering from bipolar I disorder with psychotic features, except for psychosis related to current intoxication, in the disorder class. The bill would additionally authorize a court to refer an individual from felony proceedings, as specified, to the CARE Act program. The bill would authorize a CARE Act court to consider a referral as a petition for participation in the CARE program if certain requirements are met. The bill would make additional technical and conforming changes. Existing law requires the Judicial Council to develop a mandatory form for use to file a CARE process petition with the court, and requires the petition to be signed under penalty of perjury and include either an affidavit of a licensed behavioral health professional, as defined, or evidence that the respondent was detained for a minimum of 2 intensive treatments, as specified. The bill would additionally include a nurse practitioner and physician assistant as a licensed behavioral health professional for purposes of individuals authorized to prepare an affidavit supporting a CARE process petition. By increasing various duties on county behavioral health agencies, 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.
(1) Under existing law, a licensed health care provider who is authorized by law to prescribe an opioid antagonist may issue standing orders for the distribution of an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose or to a family member, friend, or other person in a position to assist a person at risk of an opioid-related overdose. Existing law exempts a health care provider who acts with reasonable care in issuing a prescription or order for an opioid antagonist from professional review, civil action, or criminal prosecution, under certain circumstances. Existing law requires that a person who receives an opioid antagonist pursuant to a standing order or otherwise possesses an opioid antagonist receive training, as specified. Existing law provides that a person who is trained in the use of an opioid antagonist and acts with reasonable care and in good faith is not subject to professional review, liable in a civil action, or subject to criminal prosecution. This bill would expand the above-described authorizations to those who are at risk of or any person who may be in a position to assist a person experiencing any overdose and would strike the requirement that those who receive and possess opioid antagonists receive training. The bill would authorize a person in a position to assist a person at risk of an overdose to possess an opioid antagonist and subsequently dispense or distribute an opioid antagonist to a person at risk of an overdose or another person in a position to assist a person at risk of an overdose. The bill would instead exempt a person who administers an opioid antagonist in good faith, whether or not they were trained, from liability for civil damages, as specified, and would instead exempt a health care provider who acts with reasonable care from liability in a civil action for any injuries or damages relating to or resulting from the acts or omissions of any person who administers the opioid antagonist in good faith, as specified. (2) Existing law imposes a drug program fee for each separate controlled substance offense, as specified, to be deposited by the county treasurer in a drug program fund. Existing law requires that a portion of the fund be allocated to primary prevention programs in the community. This bill would state that primary prevention programs may include those activities aligned with evidence-based best practices, as specified. (3) Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to license and regulate facilities that provide residential nonmedical services to adults who are recovering from problems related to alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug misuse or abuse, and who need alcohol, drug, or alcohol and drug recovery treatment or detoxification services. Existing law authorizes a licensed alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility to permit incidental medical services, as defined, to be provided to a resident at the facility premises by a licensed physician and surgeon or other health care practitioner under specified limited circumstances, including that the resident has signed an admission agreement. Existing law requires a licensee to develop a plan to address when a resident relapses, including when a resident is on the licensed premises after consuming alcohol or using illicit drugs. This bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2027, to offer a combined application for entities seeking licensure as an alcohol or other drug recovery or treatment facility and to provide incidental medical services, as defined. The bill would prohibit the department from requiring an admission agreement to require a person to be abstinent and not intoxicated in order to be admitted to care or continue treatment. The bill would require a licensee to prioritize the individual maintaining some level of connection to treatment, following a relapse. (4) Existing law defines "drug- or alcohol-related program" as any program designed to reduce the unlawful use of, or assist those who engage in the unlawful use of, drugs or alcohol, through various means, such as intervention, treatment, and enforcement, among others. Existing law prohibits the encumbrance of state funds for a drug- or alcohol-related program unless it contains a component that explains that there is no unlawful use of drugs or alcohol and requires all aspects of a drug- or alcohol-related program receiving state funds to be consistent with the "no lawful use" message. This bill would redefine that term to mean any program designed to assist persons with substance use disorders and would strike enforcement from the specified means. The bill would repeal the above-described provisions related to the "no lawful use" message.
(1) Existing law, the California Nutrition Monitoring Development Act of 1986, requires the State Department of Public Health to assess the availability and adequacy of existing state and local food and nutrition data systems. The act requires different state departments, including the State Department of Education, to provide to the State Department of Public Health, upon request, nutrition-related data collection forms, documentation, and reports of various programs. This bill would define "ultraprocessed food" for certain school-related purposes and would require the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations, on or before June 1, 2028, to define "ultraprocessed foods of concern" and "restricted school foods," as specified. The bill would require the department, when defining ultraprocessed foods of concern and restricted school foods, to consider specified factors, including, among others, whether, based on reputable peer-reviewed scientific evidence, a substance or group of substances are linked to health harms or adverse health consequences, as specified. The bill would require schools, as defined, to begin to phase out restricted school foods and ultraprocessed foods of concern by no later than July 1, 2029. Beginning July 1, 2032, the bill would prohibit a vendor from offering restricted school foods and ultraprocessed foods of concern to a school. This bill, on or before February 1, 2028, and on or before February 1 of each year thereafter through February 1, 2032, would require a vendor to report specified information to the State Department of Public Health for each food product sold to a school in the past calendar year, including, among others, the total quantity of food product sold to schools and whether that food product is an ultraprocessed food, a restricted school food, or an ultraprocessed food of concern. The bill, on or before July 1, 2028, and on or before July 1 of each year thereafter through July 1, 2032, would require the State Department of Public Health, in consultation with the State Department of Education, to submit to the Legislature and the Governor a report that contains, among other things, a summary and analysis of the information reported to the State Department of Public Health by vendors and recommendations for state and local legislative actions that could reduce the consumption of ultraprocessed foods, restricted school foods, and ultraprocessed foods of concern in schools. The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to consult with the State Department of Education regarding compliance training and technical assistance for school food service and procurement staff for these purposes and would require the State Department of Public Health to establish a structure to deliver training and technical assistance to local educational agencies. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Education to develop and maintain nutrition guidelines for school lunches and breakfasts, and for all food and beverages sold on public school campuses, consistent with the requirements for a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch. Existing law defines a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch for these purposes to mean those that qualify for reimbursement under the most current meal pattern for the federal School Breakfast Program and the federal National School Lunch Program, respectively. Existing law requires a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, to make available a nutritionally adequate breakfast and a nutritionally adequate lunch, free of charge, during each schoolday to any pupil who requests a meal without consideration of the pupil's eligibility for a federally funded free or reduced-price meal. Existing law authorizes a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education, from the midnight before to 30 minutes after the end of the official schoolday, to sell food and beverages other than meals reimbursed by specified federal nutrition programs, only if the food or beverages meet dietary guidelines, as specified, depending on grade level. This bill, beginning July 1, 2035, would prohibit a school district, county superintendent of schools, or charter school maintaining kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive, from offering a nutritionally adequate breakfast or lunch that includes restricted school foods or ultraprocessed foods of concern, as provided, and would prohibit a school operated and maintained by a school district or county office of education from selling food or beverages, except for food items sold as part of a school fundraising event, containing those restricted school foods or ultraprocessed foods of concern, as provided. (3) To the extent this bill would impose additional requirements on public schools, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) 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 Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, in-person, face-to-face contact is not required under the Medi-Cal program when covered health care services are provided by video synchronous interaction, asynchronous store and forward, audio-only synchronous interaction, remote patient monitoring, or other permissible virtual communication modalities, when those services and settings meet certain criteria. Existing law required the department, on or before January 1, 2023, to develop a research and evaluation plan that, among other things, proposes strategies to analyze the relationship between telehealth and access to care, quality of care, and Medi-Cal program costs, utilization, and program integrity. The department created that plan in December of 2022 and published the Biennial Telehealth Utilization Report in April of 2024. This bill, the Telehealth for All Act of 2025, would require the department, commencing in 2028 and every 2 years thereafter, to use Medi-Cal data and other data sources available to the department to produce analyses in a publicly available Medi-Cal telehealth utilization report. The bill would authorize the department to include those analyses in each of the department's Biennial Telehealth Utilization Reports, as specified. The bill would require the analyses to address telehealth access and utilization data, including various metrics on telehealth visits and claims, disaggregated by geographic, demographic, and social determinants of health categories to identify disparities. The bill would require the department to identify additional data elements for inclusion in future reports to help to identify and address access-to-care issues or provide greater insight into utilization of telehealth modalities.
Existing law requires a hospital to provide patients with a written notice containing information about the availability of the hospital's discount payment and charity care policies, including information about eligibility and the contact information for a hospital employee or office from which a person may obtain further information about these policies. Existing law defines "charity care" and "discount payment" for these purposes. Existing law requires a hospital to provide to the Department of Health Care Access and Information a copy of its discount payment policy, charity care policy, eligibility procedures for those policies, review process, and the application for charity care or discounted payment programs, among other information. A violation of these provisions results in an administrative penalty, as specified. This bill would, commencing July 1, 2027, require a hospital to screen a patient to determine if they meet specific criteria, including that the patient is enrolled in CalFresh or CalWORKs, and, if they do, presumptively determine that a patient is eligible for participation under the hospital's charity care policy and discount payment policy. The bill would require a hospital to screen a patient for eligibility if the patient meets other specified criteria, including, among others, that the patient is uninsured. The bill would prohibit a hospital from requiring a patient to apply for the federal Medicare program, the Medi-Cal program, or other coverage before the patient is screened for or provided with discounted payment, as specified. The bill would require a hospital to provide patients with the ability to opt out of the screening process through a specified form. The bill would authorize a hospital, at its discretion or as established in its charity care policy or discount payment policy, to make presumptive determinations of eligibility or to conduct screening for patients that do not meet the criteria described above. The bill would authorize certain procedures and tools for screening, including, among others, allowing a hospital to use third-party software tools or services or to contract with a third party under specified conditions. The bill would require a hospital to provide a specified written notice to those patients determined to be eligible, presumptively or otherwise, under these provisions and would prohibit any billing statements from being sent prior to the written notice. The bill would require the billing statements to reflect the adjustments made to the patient's hospital charges under the hospital's charity care policy or discount payment policy.
Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensing and regulation of community care facilities by the State Department of Social Services, including adult day programs and residential facilities. A violation of provisions relating to these facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would authorize a licensed facility or licensee, as defined, upon receipt of a request from a client, or the authorized representative of a client, who has been diagnosed with seizures, a seizure disorder, or epilepsy and who has been prescribed intranasal emergency antiseizure medication, to allow an administrator or authorized volunteer, as defined, to administer intranasal emergency antiseizure medication to the client during a seizure emergency. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2028, to establish minimum standards for this training, as specified. The bill would prohibit intranasal emergency antiseizure medication from being administered to a client unless the licensee has a seizure action plan for the client that contains specified information, including, among other things, a signed written authorization verifying that a seizure experienced by the client may be responded to at the licensee by a nonmedical professional, including through the administration of emergency antiseizure medication, as specified. The bill would require licensees to maintain with the client's seizure action plan a description of how the licensee will coordinate care for a client in the absence of an administrator or authorized volunteer and what actions will be taken to ensure the continued safety of the client. The bill would require licensed facilities to provide a specified notice to all administrators and authorized volunteers that, among other things, informs them of their right to rescind an offer to volunteer at any time, as specified, and explains the liability protections and indemnification requirements described below. The bill would require any licensee that authorizes administrators or authorized volunteers to ensure that each administrator or authorized volunteer will be provided defense and indemnification for any and all civil liability, as specified. The bill would prohibit an administrator or authorized volunteer who administers intranasal emergency antiseizure medication, any person who provides training to an administrator or authorized volunteer, or any person who otherwise complies with the requirements of the above-described provisions, in good faith and not for compensation, from being subject to professional review, civil liability, or criminal prosecution for their actions or omissions, or the actions or omissions of a volunteer, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, 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, the Pharmacy Law, establishes the California State Board of Pharmacy for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies. Existing law authorizes a prescriber to dispense a dangerous drug, including a controlled substance, to an emergency room patient if specified requirements are met, including that the dangerous drug is acquired by the hospital pharmacy. This bill would, notwithstanding any other law, authorize a prescriber to dispense an unused portion of a dangerous drug acquired by the hospital pharmacy to an emergency room patient upon discharge if certain conditions are satisfied, including that the dangerous drug is not a controlled substance and that dispensing the unused portion of the dangerous drug is required to continue treatment of the patient. Existing law requires an automated drug delivery system (ADDS) that is installed, leased, owned, or operated in California to be licensed by the board. Existing law exempts an automated unit dose system (AUDS) , a type of ADDS, from licensure if the AUDS is used solely to provide doses administered to patients while in a licensed general acute care hospital facility or a licensed acute psychiatric hospital facility if the licensed hospital pharmacy owns or leases the AUDS and owns the dangerous drugs and dangerous devices in the AUDS. This bill would also exempt from licensure an AUDS that is used to dispense dangerous drugs to emergency room patients in accordance with specified requirements.
Existing law, the Home Care Services Consumer Protection Act, requires a home care organization, as defined, to ensure that an affiliated home care aide completes specified training requirements prior to providing home care services, including annual training related to the aide's clients' rights and safety and how to provide for a client's daily living needs. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor. This bill would, beginning on January 1, 2027, additionally require a home care organization to ensure that a home care aide completes, prior to providing home care and annually thereafter, training related to the special care needs of clients with dementia. Because the bill creates new crimes by expanding the act to include additional requirements for home care organizations, 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.
