Existing law, the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009, provides, among other things, for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary institutions in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs. The act exempts an institution from its application if any of a list of specific criteria are met. Existing law requires an out-of-state private postsecondary educational institution to comply with specified requirements, including providing the bureau evidence of the institution's accreditation. Existing law repeals the act on January 1, 2021. If the operation of the act is extended by another measure, existing law, effective July 1, 2022, requires additional duties by an out-of-state private postsecondary educational institution. This bill would define nonprofit corporation and public institution of higher education specially for purposes of the act. The bill would specify that only an institution of higher education meeting the act's definition of nonprofit corporation or public institution of higher education is exempt from the requirements imposed on an out-of-state private postsecondary educational institution. The bill, commencing January 1, 2022, would prohibit the bureau from verifying the exemption of, or contracting to handle complaints for, a nonprofit institution that operated as a for-profit institution during any period on or after January 1, 2010, unless the Attorney General verifies specified information, and would require the Attorney General to provide written notification to the institution and the bureau of its verification within 90 days of receipt of all information the Attorney General determines is necessary for the verification. The bill, commencing January 1, 2022, would authorize appeal of actions taken by the bureau and the Attorney General to the superior court. The provisions of this bill would be implemented only if the operation of the act is extended by another measure. Under existing law, the act specifies conduct by regulated institutions that, if undertaken, is a crime. Because this bill would extend the application of those criminal provisions, it 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law also provides for the regulation of disability insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law, known as the California Mental Health Parity Act, requires every health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2000, that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage to provide coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of severe mental illnesses of a person of any age, and of serious emotional disturbances of a child under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions, as specified. Existing law requires those benefits to include, among other things, outpatient services, inpatient hospital services, partial hospital services, and prescription drugs, if the plan contract or policy includes coverage for prescription drugs. This bill would revise and recast those provisions, and would instead require a health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2021, to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders, as defined, under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions. The bill would prohibit a health care service plan or disability insurer from limiting benefits or coverage for mental health and substance use disorders to short-term or acute treatment. The bill would revise the covered benefits to include basic health care services, as defined, intermediate services, and prescription drugs. This bill would require a health care service plan or disability insurer that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage to base medical necessity determinations and the utilization review criteria the plan or insurer, and any entity acting on the plan's or insurer's behalf, applies to determine the medical necessity of health care services and benefits for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental health and substance use disorders, on current generally accepted standards of mental health and substance use disorder care. The bill would require the health care service plan or insurer to apply specified clinical criteria and guidelines in conducting utilization review of the covered health care services and benefits and would prohibit the plan or insurer from applying different, additional, or conflicting criteria than the criteria and guidelines in the specified sources. The bill would authorize the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Insurance Commissioner, as applicable, to assess administrative or civil penalties, as specified, for violation of the requirements relating to utilization review. The bill would make any provision in a health care service plan issued, delivered, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2021, that reserves discretionary authority to the plan, or an agent of the plan, to determine eligibility for benefits or coverage, interprets the terms of the contract, or provides standards of interpretation or review that are inconsistent with California law, void and unenforceable, as specified. The bill would declare that its provisions are severable. Because a willful violation of these requirements with respect to health care service plans would be a 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.
(1) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, which is administered by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, contains various provisions regulating the application for, the issuance of, the suspension of, and the conditions imposed upon, alcoholic beverage licenses by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Existing law authorizes the department to issue a special on-sale general license to any nonprofit theater company, as specified, for use at a single location. Existing law, known as tied-house restrictions, generally prohibits certain alcoholic beverage licensees, including manufacturers, from holding any ownership interest in an on-sale license, subject to a variety of exceptions. In connection with special on-sale general licenses issued to nonprofit theater companies, existing law creates an exception to tied-house restrictions, by permitting a licensed manufacturer, winegrower, manufacturer's agent, California winegrower's agent, rectifier, distiller, bottler, importer, or wholesaler, among others, to serve on the board of trustees or as an officer, director, or employee of a nonprofit theater company operating in the County of Napa and in the City of Livermore. This bill would extend the exception to tied-house restrictions provided to special on-sale general licenses for the trustees, officers, directors, and employees of nonprofit theater companies, described above, to a nonprofit theater company operating a theater in the City of Modesto. (2) Existing law provides that a licensee whose licensed premises were destroyed as a result of fire or any act of God or other force beyond the control of the licensee may carry on the licensee's business for a period of up to 180 days or six months, as applicable, at a location within 500 feet of the licensed premises while the destroyed premises are being repaired or rebuilt. This bill would revise these provisions to authorize a licensee to carry on its business at a substitute location, within 1,000 feet of the destroyed premises for a period of up to 180 days. The bill would authorize the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control to extend that time period, as provided. (3) The Alcoholic Beverage Control Act generally prohibits a manufacturer, winegrower, distiller, bottler, or wholesaler, among other licensees, or agents of these licensees, from paying a retailer for advertising. The act creates a variety of exceptions from this prohibition, including permitting specified licensees to purchase advertising space and time from, or on behalf of, an on-sale retail licensee that is an owner, manager, or major tenant of certain stadiums, parks, entertainment complexes, and arenas, subject to specified conditions. This bill would expand the exceptions described above to allow beer manufacturers, winegrowers, distilled spirits rectifiers, craft distillers, distilled spirits manufacturers, or distilled spirits manufacturer's agents to purchase advertising space and time, in connection with described events, from, or on behalf of, on-sale retail licensees, as described above, at a for-profit theater with specified characteristics located in the City and County of San Francisco. The bill would require all payments for the purchase of advertising space and time to be made pursuant to a written contract with the owner of the theater, the licensee, or the long-term tenant, as appropriate. (4) This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Modesto and the City and County of San Francisco. (5) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law, the California Community Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensing and regulation by the State Department of Social Services of community care facilities. Under existing law, community care facilities include, among others, various types of adult residential facilities. Existing law also provides for the regulation by the department of residential care facilities for persons with chronic life-threatening illness. This bill would require an applicant or licensee of an adult community care facility or a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness to maintain an email address of record with the department and notify the department in writing of the email address and any change to that address, as specified. Existing regulations of the department define an "adult residential facility" as a facility of any capacity that provides 24-hour-a-day nonmedical care and supervision to persons 18 to 59 years of age, inclusive, and, under specified conditions, to persons 60 years of age and older. Existing law requires the licensee of an adult residential facility that has submitted a closure plan to inform the city and county in which the facility is located of the proposed closure, including whether the licensee intends to sell the property or business, no later than 180 days before the proposed closure, as specified. Under existing law, a violation of the act is a misdemeanor. Existing law separately licenses and regulates residential care facilities for the elderly (RCFE) , which provide housing and other specified services for persons 60 years of age and older. Among other things, existing law requires an RCFE, prior to transferring a resident to another facility or to an independent living arrangement as a result of the forfeiture of a license or change in use of the facility, to take all reasonable steps to transfer affected residents safely, and minimize possible trauma by taking specified actions relating to resident notification and transfer and relocation planning, as prescribed, including providing written notice to the resident or the resident's responsible person 60 days prior to the eviction. Among other provisions, existing law requires an RCFE, if 7 or more residents of the facility will be transferred as a result of the forfeiture of a license or the change in the use of a facility, to submit a proposed closure plan for the affected residents to the department for review, and requires the department to approve or disapprove the plan. Existing law requires an RCFE to refund to a resident any paid preadmission fees, according to a prescribed schedule. Existing law imposes civil penalties for a violation of these requirements by an RCFE, of $100 per violation per day. Existing law requires the licensee of an RCFE to notify the city and county in which the facility is located, current residents, and other designated parties, in writing, of specified events relating to the facility and the licensee. This bill would establish similar procedures and requirements for the licensee of a licensed adult residential facility when notifying the city and county of a proposed closure or other event, and when transferring a resident of the facility to another facility or to an independent living arrangement as a result of the forfeiture of a license or a closure of the facility for another reason. The bill would additionally give the city or county the first opportunity to make an offer to purchase the property and continue the operation of the adult residential facility within 60 days after a licensee who is also the owner has notified the city or county of an intent to sell the property, as specified. The bill would authorize the city or county to either take over operation of the facility under those circumstances, or enter into a long-term lease for its operation with a nonprofit or for-profit entity with a history of providing adult residential facility services, as specified. The bill would require a lease entered into pursuant to the bill to include a requirement that the lessee maintain licensure of the property as an adult residential facility. Because a violation of the bill's requirements by certain residential facilities would be a misdemeanor, 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 governs a patient's access to their health records. Existing law requires a health care provider, as defined, to provide a patient or the patient's representative with all or any part of the patient's medical records that the patient has a right to inspect, subject to the payment of clerical costs incurred in locating and making the records available, following a written request from the patient. Existing law requires the health care provider to provide one copy of the relevant portion of the patient's record at no charge if the patient or patient's representative presents proof to the provider that the records are needed to support an appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program, as defined. Existing law makes a willful violation of these provisions by specified health care providers an infraction. This bill would require a health care provider to provide an employee of a nonprofit legal services entity representing the patient a copy of the medical records at no charge under those conditions, and would include speech-language pathologists, audiologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners within the definition of a health care provider. The bill would expand the definition of a public benefit program for these purposes to include the Cash Assistance Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled Legal Immigrants, and a government-funded housing subsidy or tenant-based housing assistance program. The bill additionally would require a health care provider to provide the records at no charge upon proof that the records are needed for a petition for U nonimmigrant status under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act or a self-petition for lawful permanent residency under the Violence Against Women Act. By expanding the requirements on health care providers and thereby expanding a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill also would prohibit a health care provider from charging a fee to a patient for filling out forms or providing information responsive to forms that support a claim or appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program. The bill would require the health care provider to provide information responsive to those portions of the form for which the health care provider has the information necessary to provide a medical opinion, as specified. The bill would authorize a health care provider to honor a request to disclose a patient record or complete a public benefit form that contains the written or electronic signature of the patient or the patient's personal representative. 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 Pet Store Animal Care Act, requires pet store operators, as defined, to comply with laws governing, among other things, the care of animals in pet stores. Existing law makes a pet store operator who violates these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor, unless otherwise provided. Existing law prohibits a pet store operator from selling a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group, as specified. Existing law imposes various requirements on a pet store operator, including, among others, that the pet store maintain sufficient records to document the origin of each dog, cat, or rabbit the pet store sells or provides space for, for at least one year. Existing law exempts a pet store operator who violates those provisions from criminal prosecution and imposes a civil penalty on pet store operators for those violations. This bill, instead, would prohibit a pet store from adopting out, selling, or offering for sale a dog, cat, or rabbit. The bill would authorize a pet store to provide space to a public animal control agency or shelter, or an animal rescue group, to showcase adoptable animals provided the animal displayed for adoption is both sterilized and adoptable for total fees not to exceed $500. The bill would prohibit the pet store displaying the dogs, cats, or rabbits from receiving any fees in connection with that display. The bill would prohibit a public animal control agency or shelter, an animal rescue group displaying animals at a pet store, or an animal rescue group operating a retail establishment from offering dogs, cats, or rabbits for adoption unless the animals are sterilized, the animals are adoptable for total fees, including adoption fees, not exceeding $500, and the adoption fees are posted and visible to the public, as described. The bill would authorize civil penalties and injunctive relief for a violation of these provisions, as specified. The bill would also repeal other requirements, including, among others, the requirement for a pet store to maintain sufficient records to document the origin of each dog, cat, or rabbit the pet store sells or provides space for adoption.
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, commonly known as the California Family Rights Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for a government employer or any employer with 50 or more employees, as specified, to refuse to grant a request by an employee, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child of the employee or to care for themselves, a child, a parent, or a spouse, as specified. Existing law authorizes an employer to refuse to grant the request if the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where the employee is employed or if the employee is a salaried employee who is among the highest paid 10% of the employer's employees, as provided. Existing law, if both parents of a child are employed by the same employer, authorizes the employer to only grant both employees a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during the 12-month period. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. The California Family Rights Act specifies that those existing pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition leave provisions are separate and distinct from the protections provided by the California Family Rights Act. Existing law, the New Parent Leave Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child. The New Parent Leave Act defines employee as a parent who has more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles. This bill would expand the California Family Rights Act to make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer with 5 or more employees to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child of the employee or to care for themselves or a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner, as specified. The bill would require an employer who employs both parents of a child to grant leave to each employee. The bill would also make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period due to a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee's spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States. The bill would define employee for these purposes as an individual who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, unless otherwise provided.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 120 in the County of Mono as the Chiura Obata Great Nature Memorial Highway. The measure would request the Department of Transportation to determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, to erect those signs.
This measure would designate a specified portion of State Route 50 in the County of El Dorado as the Deputy Sheriff Brian "Ish" Ishmael Memorial Highway. The measure would request that the Department of Transportation determine the cost of appropriate signs showing this special designation and, upon receiving donations from nonstate sources covering that cost, erect those signs.
Under existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, the Governor is authorized to proclaim a state of emergency, as defined, under specified circumstances. The California Emergency Services Act also authorizes the governing body of a city, county, city and county, or an official designated by ordinance adopted by that governing body, to proclaim a local emergency, as defined. Under existing law, the Office of Emergency Services within the Governor's office is required to, among other things, develop curriculum for first responder training, and to adopt standards and procedures for training first responder instructors. A person who violates any provision of the act is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would, for purposes of the California Emergency Services Act, define "first responder" as an employee of the state or a local public agency who provides emergency response services, including a peace officer, firefighter, paramedic, emergency medical technician, public safety dispatcher, or public safety telecommunicator. The bill would provide that the definition of first responder described above does not confer a right to, or entitlement upon, an employee or prospective employee to obtain a retirement benefit formula for an employment classification that is not included in, or is expressly excluded from, that formula, as specified. The bill would prohibit an employer from offering, or indicating an ability to offer to an employee or prospective employee a retirement benefit formula for an employment classification that is not included in, or is expressly excluded from, that formula because of the definition of "first responder." 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.