Asm. Jim Wood

(1) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) , an initiative measure approved as Proposition 64 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, authorizes a person who obtains a state license under AUMA to engage in commercial adult-use cannabis activity pursuant to that license and applicable local ordinances. The Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA) , among other things, consolidates the licensure and regulation of commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis activities. Existing administrative law prohibits a retailer licensee from providing free cannabis goods to any person or allowing individuals who are not employed by the retailer to provide free cannabis goods to any person on the licensed premises. Existing administrative law provides an exception to this prohibition for specified medicinal retailer and microbusiness licensees to provide access to medicinal cannabis patients who have difficulty accessing medicinal cannabis goods, as specified. This bill would similarly authorize those specified licensees to provide free cannabis or cannabis products to a medical cannabis patient if specified requirements are met, including that the cannabis or cannabis products otherwise meet specified requirements of MAUCRSA. The bill would authorize those specified licensees to contract with an individual or organization to coordinate the provision of free medicinal cannabis and medicinal cannabis products on the retailer's premises. (2) Existing sales and use tax laws impose use taxes on the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property purchased from a retailer for storage, use, or other consumption in this state, presumes tangible personal property purchased outside the state that is stored, used, or consumed in this state is purchased for use in this state, and excludes from use taxes, specified tangible personal property purchased and used for specified purposes. This bill, on or after January 1, 2019, and until January 1, 2024, would exempt from the use tax the storage, use, or other consumption in this state of medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products that are donated, for no consideration, under specified circumstances. The bill would require the exemption to apply only if the donee certifies in writing, as specified, that the medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product will be used as specified. The bill would make a licensee that uses the donated medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product in some other manner, or for some other purpose, liable for the payment of use tax and would make the measure of tax the licensee's purchase price for similar product. The Bradley-Burns Uniform Local Sales and Use Tax Law authorizes counties and cities to impose local sales and use taxes in conformity with the Sales and Use Tax Law, and existing laws authorize districts, as specified, to impose transactions and use taxes in accordance with the Transactions and Use Tax Law, which generally conforms to the Sales and Use Tax Law. Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Law are automatically incorporated into the local tax laws. Existing law requires the state to reimburse counties and cities for revenue losses caused by the enactment of sales and use tax exemptions. This bill would provide that, notwithstanding Section 2230 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, no appropriation is made and the state shall not reimburse any local agencies for sales and use tax revenues lost by them pursuant to this bill. (3) AUMA imposes an excise tax on the purchase of cannabis and cannabis products, as defined, at the rate of 15% of the average market price of any retail sale by a cannabis retailer. The bill would require that these provisions not be construed to impose an excise tax upon medicinal cannabis, or medicinal cannabis products, donated for no consideration to a medicinal cannabis patient, as specified. (4) AUMA imposes a cultivation tax on all harvested cannabis that enters the commercial market upon all cultivators. Existing law defines entering the commercial market to mean cannabis or cannabis products, except for immature cannabis plants and seeds, that complete and comply with specified quality assurance review and testing. This bill would prohibit the cultivation tax from being imposed on medicinal cannabis designated for donation. The bill would make a licensee that certifies in writing that medicinal cannabis or a medicinal cannabis product will be donated to a medicinal cannabis patient and sells or uses the medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis product in some manner, or for some purpose other than donation, liable for the cultivation tax. The bill would specify that the certification in writing relieves the cultivator that donates the medicinal cannabis from liability for the cultivation tax and the distributor from liability for collecting the cultivation only if the certification is taken in good faith. The bill would prohibit a distributor or a manufacturer from collecting or remitting the cultivation tax for medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. The bill would require a cultivator to keep records of any medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. The bill would require that the cannabis tax provisions not be construed to impose a cultivation tax upon medicinal cannabis or medicinal cannabis products designated for donation. (5) This bill would provide that the provisions of the act are severable. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 26001 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 2980 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2980 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, an initiative measure, authorizes the Legislature to amend the act to further the purposes and intent of the act with a 23 vote of the membership of both houses of the Legislature, except as provided. This bill would declare that its provisions further specified purposes and intent of the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. (8) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law imposes certain obligations in the context of particular transactions, and provides mechanisms to enforce those obligations. This bill would enact the California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018. This act would prohibit fixed and mobile Internet service providers, as defined, that provide broadband Internet access service, as defined, from engaging in specified actions concerning the treatment of Internet traffic. The act would prohibit, among other things, blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, impairing or degrading lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a nonharmful device, and specified practices relating to zero-rating, as defined. It would also prohibit fixed and mobile Internet service providers from offering or providing services other than broadband Internet access service that are delivered over the same last-mile connection as the broadband Internet access service, if those services have the purpose or effect of evading the above-described prohibitions or negatively affect the performance of broadband Internet access service.

Existing law authorizes a court to grant pretrial diversion, for a period no longer than 2 years, to a defendant suffering from a mental disorder, on an accusatory pleading alleging the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, in order to allow the defendant to undergo mental health treatment. Existing law conditions eligibility on, among other criteria, a court finding that the defendant's mental disorder played a significant role in the commission of the charged offense. Existing law requires, if the defendant has performed satisfactorily in diversion, that the court dismiss the defendant's criminal charges, with a record filed with the Department of Justice indicating the disposition of the case diverted, that the arrest is deemed never to have occurred, and requires the court to order access to the record of the arrest restricted, except as specified. This bill would make defendants ineligible for the diversion program for certain offenses, including murder, voluntary manslaughter, and rape. The bill would authorize a court to require the defendant to make a prima facie showing that the defendant will meet the minimum requirements of eligibility for diversion and that the defendant and the offense are suitable for diversion, as specified. The bill would also require the court, upon request, to conduct a hearing to determine whether restitution is owed to any victim as a result of the diverted offense and, if owed, to order its payment during the period of diversion. The bill would provide that a defendant's inability to pay restitution due to indigence or mental disorder would not be grounds for denial of diversion or a finding that the defendant has failed to comply with the terms of diversion. The bill would also make technical changes.

Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, provides for the licensure and regulation of pharmacists and pharmacies by the California State Board of Pharmacy. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a crime. This bill would require a pharmacy to inform a customer at the point of sale for a covered prescription drug whether the retail price is lower than the applicable cost-sharing amount for the prescription drug, unless the pharmacy automatically charges the customer the lower price. If the customer pays the retail price, the bill would require the pharmacy to submit the claim to the plan or insurer in the same manner as if the customer had purchased the prescription drug by paying the cost-sharing amount when submitted by the network pharmacy. The bill would provide that the payment rendered by an enrollee would constitute the applicable cost sharing, as specified. The bill would provide that a violation of those provisions would not be grounds for disciplinary or criminal action. Existing law imposes specified requirements on an audit of pharmacy services provided to beneficiaries of a health benefit plan and defines a "pharmacy benefit manager" for those purposes as a person, business, or other entity that, pursuant to a contract or under an employment relationship with a carrier, health benefit plan sponsor, or other 3rd-party payer, either directly or through an intermediary, manages the prescription drug coverage provided by the carrier, plan sponsor, or other 3rd-party payer. The bill would require pharmacy benefit managers to exercise good faith and fair dealing. Among other things, the bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to notify a purchaser, as defined, in writing of any activity, policy, or practice of the pharmacy benefit manager that directly or indirectly presents a conflict of interest that interferes with the discharge of the pharmacy benefit manager's duty to the purchaser to exercise good faith and fair dealing. The bill would require a pharmacy benefit manager to disclose, on a quarterly basis, and upon the request of the purchaser, certain information with respect to prescription product benefits specific to the purchaser, including, but not limited to, the aggregate wholesale acquisition costs from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler for certain therapeutic drugs and any administrative fees received from a pharmaceutical manufacturer or labeler. The bill would exempt from those requirements proprietary information, as defined, if the purchaser fails to agree, in writing, to maintain that information as confidential. The bill would impose additional requirements on pharmacy benefit managers to disclose to pharmacy network providers or their contracting agents of any material change to a contract provision that affects, among other things, the terms of reimbursement. The bill would prohibit a pharmacy benefit manager from including in a contract with a pharmacy network provider or its contracting agent a provision that prohibits the provider from informing a patient of a less costly alternative to a prescribed medication. The bill would exempt from the above provisions a health care service plan or health insurer, or its affiliate, subsidiary, related entity, or contracted medical group, if it offers, provides, or administers pharmacy benefit management services only to enrollees, subscribers, policyholders, or insureds, as specified, and certain contracts under the Labor Code. On and after January 1, 2020, and until January 1, 2023, the bill would also establish a pilot project in the Counties of Riverside and Sonoma to assess the impact of health care service plan and pharmacy benefit manager prohibitions on the dispensing of certain amounts of prescription drugs by network retail pharmacies. In those counties, the bill would prohibit a health care service plan from prohibiting, or permitting any delegated pharmacy benefit manager to prohibit, a pharmacy provider from dispensing a particular amount of a prescribed medication if the plan or pharmacy benefit manager allows that amount to be dispensed through a pharmacy owned or controlled by the plan or pharmacy benefit manager, except as specified. The bill would require plans in those counties to report annually to the Department of Managed Health Care information and data relating to the pilot project. The bill would require the department to provide a summary of that data to the Governor and health policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the Counties of Riverside and Sonoma. Existing law provides for the regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care. A willful violation of those provisions is a crime. Existing law requires health care service plans that cover prescription drug benefits and that issue cards to enrollees to issue to each of its enrollees a uniform prescription drug information card that, at a minimum, contains specified information, including information required by the benefit administrator or health care service plan that is necessary to commence processing a pharmacy claim and a telephone number that pharmacy providers may call for assistance. On and after January 1, 2020, the bill would impose additional requirements on health care service plans with regard to contracted pharmacy providers and pharmacy benefit managers. Among other things, the bill would prohibit a health care service plan from including in a contract with a pharmacy provider or its contracting agent a provision that prohibits the provider from informing a patient of a less costly alternative to a prescribed medication. The bill would require a health care service plan that contracts with a pharmacy benefit manager for management of any or all of its prescription drug coverage to require the pharmacy benefit manager to comply with specified provisions, register with the department pursuant to these provisions, and exercise good faith and fair dealing in the performance of its contractual duties to a health care service plan. The bill would require the registration of those pharmacy benefit managers with the department, as specified, and would authorize the department to set a fee for registration, as specified. The bill would establish enforcement provisions. The bill would also establish a Task Force on Pharmacy Benefit Management Reporting, until February 1, 2020, to determine what information related to pharmaceutical costs, if any, the department should require to be reported by health care service plans or their contracted pharmacy benefit managers. The bill would require the department to submit a report of the task force to specified persons and entities within the Legislature. Because a willful violation of these provisions by 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.

Existing law establishes the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and 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. Existing law requires the State Department of Health Care Services to develop a federal waiver program, known as the Assisted Living Waiver program, to test the efficacy of providing an assisted living benefit to beneficiaries under the Medi-Cal program. Existing law requires that the benefit include, but not be limited to, the care and supervision activities specified for residential care facilities for the elderly. Existing law requires implementation of the program only to the extent federal financial participation is available and funds are appropriated or otherwise available for the program. This bill would require the department to submit, in 2019, to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services a request for renewal of the Assisted Living Waiver program with specified amendments. The bill would require, as part of the amendments, additional slots, as specified, in the 15 existing waiver counties, expansion of the program beyond those counties on a regional basis, and modification to the provider reimbursement tiers while also maintaining the program's budget-neutral provisions. The bill would require the department, before the submission of the waiver renewal request, to notify specified legislative committees about certain information relating to the additional slots and the regional expansion, to conduct open in-person meetings with stakeholders, as specified, and to release a draft of the proposed waiver renewal for stakeholder comment. The bill would condition implementation of the waiver amendments on obtaining the necessary federal approvals and on the availability of federal financial participation. The bill would require implementation of the waiver amendments to commence within 6 months of the department's receipt of authorization for the necessary resources, as specified. The bill would also make legislative findings and declarations relating to the Assisted Living Waiver program.

Existing law authorizes a court, if the court finds that a person has a developmental disability, and is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, to make an order that the person be committed to the State Department of Developmental Services for suitable treatment and habilitation services, as specified. This bill would authorize a court to order, until June 30, 2021, the commitment of an individual who meets specified criteria for admission due to an acute crisis, as defined, to a separate and distinct unit of Canyon Springs Community Facility. The bill would make other conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code proposed by SB 1494 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1494 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.