Existing law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) , requires each state to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange that facilitates the purchase of qualified health plans by qualified individuals and qualified small employers, and meets certain other requirements. PPACA specifies that an individual who is not a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan offered through an exchange. Existing law creates the California Health Benefit Exchange for the purpose of facilitating the enrollment of qualified individual and qualified small employers in qualified health plans as required under PPACA. Existing law governs health care service plans and insurers. A violation of the provisions governing health care service plans is a crime. This bill would create the California Health Exchange Program for All Californians within state government and would require that the program be governed by the executive board that governs the California Health Benefit Exchange. The bill would specify the duties of the board relative to the program and would require the board to, by January 1, 2016, facilitate the enrollment into qualified health plans of individuals who are not eligible for full-scope Medi-Cal coverage and would have been eligible to purchase coverage through the Exchange but for their immigration status. The bill would require the board to provide premium subsidies and cost-sharing reductions to eligible individuals that are the same as the premium assistance and cost-sharing reductions the individuals would have received through the Exchange. The bill would create the California Health Trust Fund For All Californians as a continuously appropriated fund, thereby making an appropriation, would require the board to assess a charge on qualified health plans, and would make the implementation of the program's provisions contingent on a determination by the board that sufficient financial resources exist or will exist in the fund. The bill would enact other related provisions. The bill would require health care services plans and health insurers to fairly and affirmatively offer, market, and sell in the Exchange at least one product within each of 5 levels of coverage, as specified. Because a violation of the requirements imposed on health care service plans would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law provides for 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. The federal Medicaid Program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law. This bill would extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status. The bill would require that benefits for those services be provided with state-only funds only if federal financial participation is not available. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and this bill would expand Medi-Cal eligibility, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
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 provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires health care service plan contracts or health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2000, to provide coverage for the diagnosis and medically necessary treatment of severe mental illnesses, as defined, and of serious emotional disturbances of a child, as specified, under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions. Existing federal law, the federal Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA) requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to ensure that financial requirements and treatment limitations applicable to mental health or substance use disorder benefits are no more restrictive than the predominant requirements or limitations applied to substantially all medical and surgical benefits. Existing state law requires individual and small group health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2014, to comply with MHPAEA. This bill would, on or after October 1, 2014, require every health care service plan that provides hospital, medical, or surgical coverage, every specialized mental health care service plan that contracts with a health care service plan to provide mental health services, and every health insurer to submit an annual report to the Department of Managed Health Care or the Department of Insurance, as appropriate, certifying compliance with specified state laws and the MHPAEA, except as provided. The bill would require the departments to collaborate with each other and consult with experts and stakeholders to create the standards for the form and content of those reports on or before July 1, 2014. The bill would require those departments to report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2020, on the information obtained through those annual reports. The bill would require the reports to be a public record made available upon request and to be published on the respective departments' Internet Web sites. The bill would require those plans and insurers to conduct surveys of enrollees, insureds, and providers as part of the report, as specified. The bill would prohibit the inclusion of any information that may individually identify enrollees or insureds in the reports submitted to the respective departments pursuant to the provisions described above. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a health care service plan 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 provides for a public postsecondary education system in this state. This system consists of the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges. Existing law authorizes these institutions to require that mandatory systemwide fees and tuition, among other fees, be paid by enrolled students. Existing law establishes the Student Aid Commission as the primary state agency for the administration of state-authorized student financial aid programs available to students attending all segments of postsecondary education. This bill would require the Student Aid Commission and the Legislative Analyst to conduct a study of the effects of enacting, in future legislation, a Pay it Forward, Pay it Back Pilot Program and would designate the Legislative Analyst as the lead agency in charge of preparing the study. The study would evaluate a pilot program designed to provide an additional option for students to finance the costs of their education, by paying the costs of upfront tuition, fees, and room and board, for enrollment at institutions of higher education, for admitted resident students who sign a binding contract to, upon graduation, pay 2 to 4%, inclusive, of their annual adjusted gross incomes to the state or the institution for a specified number of years, as provided. The bill would further specify that the pilot program could vary by institution. This bill would require the study to, among other things, identify at least one campus of each segment of public higher education and one campus of a nonprofit private postsecondary educational institution to participate in the pilot program and establish an immediate source of funding for the first 15 to 20 years, inclusive, of the pilot program, as provided. The bill would require that the study be presented for consideration by the Legislature, and would require the Student Aid Commission to submit a report on the study to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education and the Senate Committee on Education on or before September 30, 2015. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations related to these provisions.
Existing law, the Political Reform Act of 1974, provides for the comprehensive regulation of campaign financing, including requiring the reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and imposing other reporting and recordkeeping requirements on campaign committees. Existing law additionally imposes disclosure statement requirements with respect to advertisements supporting or opposing a candidate or ballot measure paid for by donors making contributions of specified amounts or by independent expenditures and defines several terms and phrases for these purposes. Existing law makes a knowing or willful violation of the Political Reform Act of 1974 a misdemeanor and subjects offenders to criminal penalties. This bill would repeal and recast several definitions. The bill would modify a committee identification requirement and a disclosure statement requirement relating to advertisements for or against any ballot measure paid for by a committee. The bill would impose new disclosure statement requirements for political advertisements regarding a ballot measure that are radio advertisements, prerecorded telephonic messages, television or video advertisements, or mass mailing or print advertisements that would require the identification of identifiable contributors, ballot measures, and other funding details, as specified. By introducing new disclosure requirements, the violation of which would be a misdemeanor, the bill would create a new crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Existing law creates the Fair Political Practices Commission, and gives it primary responsibility for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of the Political Reform Act of 1974. The bill would require the Fair Political Practices Commission to promulgate regulations related to identifying and reporting persons who are the original sources of funds transferred through committees or other persons to determine identifiable contributors by January 1, 2016. The bill would require the Commission to promulgate regulations prohibiting a recipient of funds transferred by an identifiable contributor from depositing the funds until required applicable reports have been received by the recipient. This bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 84511 of the Government Code proposed by A.B. 510, that would become operative only if A.B. 510 and this bill are both chaptered and become effective on or before January 1, 2015, and this bill is chaptered last. 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. The Political Reform Act of 1974, an initiative measure, provides that the Legislature may amend the act to further the act's purposes upon a 23 vote of each house and compliance with specified procedural requirements. This bill would declare that it furthers the purposes of the act.
This measure would declare that the Legislature joins the County of Riverside in opposing base realignment and closure affecting the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Corona Division, and March Air Reserve Base.
(1) Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. Existing law provides for the licensure of various professions by the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of food, drugs, devices, and cosmetics, as specified. A violation of that law is a crime. This bill would establish within the Department of Consumer Affairs a Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, under the supervision and control of the Chief of the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation, as specified, to license dispensing facilities, cultivation sites, and manufacturers that, among other things, provide, process, and grow medical marijuana, as specified, subject to local ordinances. The bill would require every city, county, or city and county that permits medical marijuana dispensing or cultivation to submit to the bureau a list of approved entities providing medical marijuana within that jurisdiction. The bill would require the bureau to adopt regulations for the implementation and enforcement of these provisions, specifically relating to procedures for licensing, fees for licenses, and sanitation. The bill would require a background check of applicants for licensure to be administered by the Department of Justice, and submission of a statement signed by an applicant, under penalty of perjury, that the information on his or her application is true, thereby creating a crime and imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would make these licenses subject to the restrictions of the local jurisdiction in which the facility operates or proposes to operate. The bill would, among other things, require licensees to implement sufficient security measures to both deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing marijuana and theft of marijuana at their facilities, including establishing limited access areas accessible only to authorized facility personnel, and would require these licensees to notify appropriate law enforcement authorities within 24 hours after discovering specified breaches in security. The bill would set forth provisions related to the transportation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana. The bill would set forth provisions for the revocation or suspension of a license for a violation of these provisions or of local ordinances. The bill would prohibit the distribution of any form of advertising for physician recommendations for medical marijuana, unless the advertisement bears a specified notice and requires that the advertisement meet specified requirements and not be fraudulent, deceitful, or misleading, as specified. Violation of these provisions would be punishable by a civil fine of up to $35,000 for each individual violation, or as otherwise specified. The bill would establish the Medical Marijuana Regulation Fund and would require the deposit of fees collected pursuant to this act into the fund. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys from the fund to the bureau for the purposes of administering this act, thereby making an appropriation. The bill would require the deposit of penalty moneys collected pursuant to this act into the General Fund. The bill would provide that it shall not supersede provisions of Measure D, as approved by the voters of the City of Los Angeles, as specified. The bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to administer and enforce these provisions. The bill would require the bureau to establish quality assurance protocols by July 1, 2016, to ensure uniform testing standards of medical marijuana, and would require licensees to comply with these provisions. The bill would further set forth provisions regulating edible medical marijuana products, as specified. By adding these provisions to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, a violation of which is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California. Existing law requires the board to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm, as specified. Existing law identifies the cases that are to be given priority, which include cases of repeated acts of excessively prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances without a good faith prior examination of the patient. Existing law provides that a violation of the Medical Practice Act is a crime. This bill would require the board to consult with the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research on developing and adopting medical guidelines for the appropriate administration and use of marijuana. The bill would also make it a misdemeanor for a physician and surgeon who recommends marijuana to a patient for a medical purpose to accept, solicit, or offer any remuneration from or to a licensed dispensing facility in which the physician and surgeon or his or her immediate family has a financial interest. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that specified acts of recommending marijuana for medical purposes without a good faith examination are among the types of cases that should be given priority for investigation and prosecution by the board, as described above. The bill would further prohibit a physician and surgeon from recommending medical marijuana to a patient unless that person is the patient's attending physician, as defined. Because a violation of that provision would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a city or county to impose various taxes, including a transactions and use tax at a rate of 0.25%, or a multiple thereof, if approved by the required vote of the legislative body and the required vote of qualified voters, and limits the combined rate of transactions and use taxes within a city or county to 2%. This bill would authorize the board of supervisors of a county to impose a tax on the privilege of cultivating, dispensing, producing, processing, preparing, storing, providing, donating, selling, or distributing marijuana or products containing marijuana. The bill would authorize the tax to be imposed for either general or specific governmental purposes. The bill would require a tax imposed pursuant to this authority to be subject to any applicable voter approval requirement. (4) Existing law exempts qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and the designated primary caregivers of qualified patients and persons with identification cards from certain crimes, including possession of concentrated cannabis and marijuana, cultivation of marijuana, and possession of marijuana for sale. This bill would also exempt from those crimes an employee, officer, or board member of a licensed cultivation site or a licensed dispensing facility, except as specified. (5) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (6) Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. (7) 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) Existing federal law, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, regulates, among other things, the quality and packaging of foods introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce and generally prohibits the misbranding of food. Existing federal law, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, governs state and local labeling requirements, including those that characterize the relationship of any nutrient specified in the labeling of food to a disease or health-related condition. Existing state law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, generally regulates misbranded food and provides that any food is misbranded if its labeling does not conform with the requirements for nutrient content or health claims as set forth in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations adopted pursuant to that federal act. Existing law requires that a food facility, as defined, make prescribed disclosures and warnings to consumers, as specified. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing state law, the Pupil Nutrition, Health, and Achievement Act of 2001, also requires the sale of only certain beverages to pupils at schools. The beverages that may be sold include fruit-based and vegetable-based drinks, drinking water with no added sweetener, milk, and in middle and high schools, an electrolyte replacement beverage if those beverages meet certain nutritional requirements. This bill would establish the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prohibit a person from distributing, selling, or offering for sale a sugar-sweetened beverage in a sealed beverage container, or a multipack of sugar-sweetened beverages, in this state unless the beverage container or multipack bears a specified safety warning, as prescribed. The bill also would require every person who owns, leases, or otherwise legally controls the premises where a vending machine or beverage dispensing machine is located, or where a sugar-sweetened beverage is sold in an unsealed container to place a specified safety warning in certain locations, including, on the exterior of any vending machine that includes a sugar-sweetened beverage for sale. (2) Under existing law, the State Department of Public Health, upon the request of a health officer, as defined, may authorize the local health department of a city, county, city and county, or local health district to enforce the provisions of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. Existing law authorizes the State Department of Public Health to assess a civil penalty against any person in an amount not to exceed $1,000 per day, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General or any district attorney, on behalf of the State Department of Public Health, to bring an action in a superior court to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining a person from violating any provision of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law. This bill, commencing July 1, 2015, would provide that any violation of the provisions described in (1) above, or regulations adopted pursuant to those provisions, is punishable by a civil penalty of not less than $50, but no greater than $500. By imposing additional enforcement duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would also create the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund for the receipt of all moneys collected for violations of those provisions. The bill would allocate moneys in this fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to the local enforcement agencies for the purpose of enforcing those provisions. The bill would make legislative findings and declarations relating to the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, obesity, and dental disease. (3) 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing federal law, the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and of Reform Act of 2012, provides for the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems, commonly known as drones, into the national airspace system by September 30, 2015. Existing federal law requires the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to develop and implement operational and certification requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system by December 31, 2015. Existing federal law also prohibits a person from operating a United States registered aircraft unless that aircraft displays specified nationality and registration marks. This bill would require, beginning January 1, 2015, a person or public or private entity that owns or operates an unmanned aircraft, as defined, to place specified identifying information or digitally store identifying information on that unmanned aircraft. The bill would exempt model aircraft, as defined, from that requirement. The bill would make a person or entity that violates that provision liable for a civil fine not to exceed $2,500. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a district attorney, county counsel, or a city attorney to bring an action to recover that fine, as specified.
This measure would call upon all Californians to observe César Chávez's birthday, March 31, as a day of public service, to recognize the hard work and self-sacrifice that farmworkers go through to feed all the families in our state, and to learn from César Chávez's life and his mission of nonviolence, social justice, and selfless service to others.
Existing law, the California Child Day Care Facilities Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of family day care homes by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law, the Child Care and Development Services Act, administered by the State Department of Education, requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to administer child care and development programs that offer a full range of services for eligible children from infancy to 13 years of age, including, among others, resource and referral programs, alternative payment programs, and family child care home education networks. This bill would authorize family child care providers, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of provider organizations, as defined, and to seek the certification of a provider organization to act as the exclusive representative for family child care providers on matters related to child care subsidy programs pursuant to a petition and election process overseen by the Public Employment Relations Board or a neutral 3rd party designated by the board. The bill would also establish a Family Child Care Parent Advisory Committee, consisting of 11 members, to advise, and make recommendations to, the Governor and any certified provider organization on certain issues, and would provide for the reimbursement of members of the committee for related travel expenses. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services and the State Department of Education, with the assistance of specified state departments and agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors, to make specified information regarding family child care providers available to provider organizations, and would require the provider organization requesting the information to bear the costs of collecting the information. The bill would establish the scope of representation of the certified provider organization, and would require the Governor, through the Department of Human Resources, in consultation with the Superintendent of Public Instruction and other entities, to meet and confer in good faith with the certified provider organization on all matters within that scope of representation. The bill would require the parties to jointly prepare a memorandum of understanding if agreement is reached, which would be binding on all state departments and agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors, that are involved in the administration of child care subsidy programs. The bill would authorize the parties, if, after a reasonable period of time they fail to reach agreement, to agree to submit unresolved issues to the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service for mediation or binding arbitration, and would authorize either party to declare that an impasse has been reached and request the Public Employment Relations Board to appoint a mediator or arbitrator from the service to perform mediation or binding arbitration. The bill would authorize a certified provider organization to enter into an agreement with the state regarding deduction of membership dues and fair share fees from subsidy payments made to providers, and would prohibit provider organizations and the state, as defined, from calling strikes and from interfering with, intimidating, restraining, coercing, or discriminating against a family child care provider for joining or refusing to join a provider organization. The bill would require the State Department of Education to require all resource and referral agencies to provide, without charge, workshops to family child care providers that include, among other things, training on child development and literacy, and to provide copies of curricula, frameworks, and introductory materials related to childhood education endorsed or published by the State Department of Education. The bill would require the State Department of Social Services to consult with a stakeholder group, as specified, regarding ways to ensure the most effective implementation of safety standards for family child care homes.