Asm. Marc Berman

(1) Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes in the Department of Consumer Affairs the Podiatric Medical Board of California to license and regulate podiatrists. Existing law, the Physician Assistant Practice Act, establishes in the Department of Consumer Affairs the Physician Assistant Board to license and regulate physician assistants. Existing law repeals the provisions establishing those boards on January 1, 2026, and specifies the repeal of those provisions renders those boards subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would extend the operation of those boards until January 1, 2030. Existing law requires the board to regulate physician assistant training programs, including, among other things, through establishing guidelines for their approval and setting fees to be paid by them. This bill would remove the above-described requirements and authorizations relating to the board's regulation of physician assistant training programs. (2) Existing law makes a physician assistant licensed by the board eligible for employment or supervision by a physician and surgeon, as specified. Existing law prohibits a physician and surgeon from supervising more than 4 physician assistants at any one time, except under certain conditions. Among those exceptions, existing law authorizes a physician and surgeon to supervise up to 8 physician assistants if the physician assistants are focused solely on performing in-home health evaluations for specified purposes. This bill would increase the number of physician assistants whom a physician and surgeon may supervise at any one time to 8. The bill would make conforming changes, including removing the above-described exception for in-home health evaluations. (3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to use certain terms or letters indicating or implying that a person is a doctor of podiatric medicine without holding a valid, unrevoked, and unsuspended certificate to practice podiatric medicine. This bill would include in those provisions the use of the term "podiatric surgeon." The bill would state that it is the policy of this state that a doctor of podiatric medicine shall be classified or treated as a doctor of podiatric medicine and shall not be classified or treated as an ancillary provider or other allied health professional in any health care setting or insurance reimbursement structure for any purpose. (4) Existing law requires the Podiatric Medical Board of California to issue a certificate to practice podiatric medicine by credentialing if an applicant has submitted to the board from the credentialing organization verification that they are licensed as a doctor of podiatric medicine in any other state if the applicant has passed specified examinations, and requires the applicant to have passed those examinations within the past 10 years. This bill would delete the requirement that the applicant pass those examinations within the past 10 years. Existing law establishes specified fees applicable to certificates to practice podiatric medicine, including a biennial renewal fee of $1,318, a $100 fee for a duplicate wall certificate, a $50 for a duplicate renewal receipt fee, and a $30 endorsement fee. This bill would increase the biennial renewal fee to $1,900 would instead establish a $100 fee for a duplicate certificate, and would delete the duplicate renewal receipt and endorsement fees. (5) Existing law establishes various fees for physician assistants, including a $25 application fee, a $250 initial license fee, a $300 biennial license renewal fee, a $25 delinquency fee, and a $10 fee for a letter of endorsement, letter of standing, or letter of verification of licensure. This bill would instead establish a $60 application fee, a $250 initial license fee, a $300 biennial license renewal fee, a $75 delinquency fee, and a $50 fee for a letter of endorsement, letter of good standing, or letter of verification of licensure. The bill would authorize the board to increase the application fee to not more than $80, the initial license fee to not more than $500, and the biennial license renewal fee to not more than $500. (6) Under existing law, a physician assistant license expires at 12 midnight of the last day of the birth month of the licensee during the 2nd year of a 2-year term if not renewed. Existing law requires a licensee, in order to renew a license, to apply for renewal on a form provided by the board, as specified. This bill would instead require that the above-described renewal applications be made on an electronic form, or other form, provided by the board. The bill would require an application form to contain a legal verification by the applicant certifying under penalty of perjury that the information provided by the applicant is true and correct. By expanding the crime of perjury, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) This bill would correct cross-references and make other technical changes to the Physician Assistant Practice Act and the provisions of the Medical Practice Act applicable to podiatrists. (8) The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that a comprehensive review of practice agreements structures be undertaken in consultation with relevant stakeholders and, in that regard, would authorize the Physician Assistant Board to collaborate, as appropriate, with the Legislature and other stakeholders to inform future policy discussions through existing processes and expertise. (9) 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 law, the Massage Therapy Act, provides for the certification and regulation of massage professionals by the California Massage Therapy Council, which is a private nonprofit organization governed by a board of directors composed of 13 members. Existing law requires one member to be appointed by the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, and authorizes the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools to appoint one member. Existing law requires one member to be a certified massage therapist or a certified massage practitioner who is a California resident who has practiced massage for at least 3 years before appointment and is selected by a specified professional society, association, or other entity the membership of which is composed of massage therapist professionals, and that chooses to participate in the council. This bill would remove the above-described appointment of one member by the office of the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, and would limit the appointment authority of the California Association of Private Postsecondary Schools by requiring that their appointed member represent an approved massage school. The bill would add an additional member who is a certified massage therapist or a certified massage practitioner who is selected by a specified professional society, association, or other entity, as described above, and would make conforming changes related to that provision. Existing law authorizes the council to take any reasonable actions necessary to carry out the responsibilities and duties set forth in the Massage Therapy Act, including hiring staff. This bill would prohibit the total annual salary for any individual employed or contracted by the council from exceeding the annual salary provided to certain state officers during that fiscal year. Existing law requires the council to issue a certificate to practice massage therapy to an applicant who meets specified qualifications, including that the applicant has successfully completed at least 500 hours in the curricula in massage and related subjects, as specified, from approved schools. Existing law requires the council to determine whether the school from which an applicant has obtained their education meets the requirement of the Massage Therapy Act. If the council has any reason to question whether or not the applicant received that education from the school or schools that the applicant is claiming, existing law requires the council to investigate the facts to determine that the applicant received the education before issuing the certificate. This bill would authorize, instead of require, the council to conduct that investigation regarding the applicant's education, as described above. The bill would require an applicant who meets all of the other requirements for certification and who received the instruction described above at an approved school that was not under formal investigation at the time at which the applicant began instruction but was subsequently placed under investigation by the council to, as a condition of certification, have the opportunity for an interview or educational hearing, as specified, provided that their application for certification was submitted to the council no more than 90 days from the date of a final decision by the council to revoke the school's approval. The bill would require the council to issue a certificate to any applicant who successfully passes the interview or hearing, provided that the school at which the applicant completed the instruction was a school approved by the council within 90 days from the date the applicant submitted their application for certification and was considered to be in good standing, as specified, at the time the applicant passed the interview or hearing. Existing law, beginning January 1, 2027, also requires an applicant to pass a massage and bodywork competency assessment examination that meets generally recognized psychometric principles and standards and that is approved by the council, as specified. The bill would remove the requirement that an applicant pass a massage and bodywork competency assessment examination as described above, and would require an approved massage school, upon each student's completion of curriculum at the massage school, to provide notice to the student that the massage and bodywork competency assessment examination is not a requirement for certification but may be required for licensure or certification as a massage therapist in any other state. Existing law requires a certificate holder to notify the council within 30 days of any changes in the certificate holder's home address or the address of any massage establishment or other location where the certificate holder provides massage for compensation, except as specified. This bill would also require a certificate holder to notify the council within 30 days of any changes in the certificate holder's legal name. Existing law makes it a violation of the Massage Therapy Act for an applicant or certificate holder to commit certain acts, and makes the commission of those acts grounds for the council to deny an application for a certificate or to impose discipline on a certificate holder. Those acts include being convicted of any felony, misdemeanor, infraction, or municipal code violation, providing massage of female breasts without the written consent of the person receiving the massage and a referral from a licensed California health care provider, and dressing in certain attire or manners while engaged in the practice of massage for compensation, or while visible to clients in a massage establishment as specified. This bill would specify that the council may take action for a conviction, as described above, when the time for appeal has elapsed, the judgment of conviction has been affirmed on appeal, or an order granting probation is made suspending the imposition of sentence. The bill would define a "conviction" for these purposes to mean a judgment following a plea or verdict of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or a finding of guilt. The bill would also revise and recast the above-described acts that are considered a violation of the Massage Therapy Act. In this regard, the bill would remove the requirement of a referral from a licensed California health care provider to provide massage of female breasts. The bill would remove the list of prohibited attire or manners of dressing while engaged in the practice of massage for compensation, or while visible to clients in a massage establishment, except that the bill would maintain the prohibition on dressing in a manner that is deemed by the council to constitute unprofessional attire based on the custom and practice of the profession in California. The bill would also include among those specified acts that are considered a violation the determination of being a threat to public safety based on mental health reasons by a medical or mental health professional, or the rendering of a finding of not guilty in a criminal proceeding by reason of insanity. Existing law authorizes a board to deny a license on the grounds that the applicant has been convicted of a crime or was subject to formal discipline within the preceding 7 years from the date of application based on professional misconduct that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the present application is made, as specified and subject to certain exceptions. This bill would require the denial of an initial certificate to practice massage therapy on the grounds that the applicant has been convicted of a crime or has been subject to formal discipline as provided under the act to be consistent with the above-described provisions authorizing a board to deny a license on certain grounds. Existing law requires the council to follow specified procedures for deciding upon and imposing the denial of a certificate or the discipline of a certificate holder under the Massage Therapy Act. Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, the council to provide an opportunity for the applicant or certificate holder to be heard, orally or in writing, not less than 5 days before the effective date of the denial or discipline, by a person or body authorized to decide whether the proposed denial or discipline should go into effect. This bill would require the person or body authorized to make that decision to be qualified. The bill would authorize an applicant or certificate holder to request an appeal of a final decision of the council to deny a certificate or discipline a certificate holder by submitting a request in writing within 30 days of the date of the final decision. In this regard, the bill would require a request to appeal a final decision to be considered by a committee of the board of directors within 120 days of the final decision, as specified. If a request to appeal is granted, the bill would require the appeal of the final decision to be heard at the next board of directors meeting, as specified, that is at least 120 days from the date that the request to appeal was granted, except as specified. The bill would require the council to notify the applicant or certificate holder of its right to request an appeal pursuant to these provisions at the time of the final decision. Existing law requires the council to develop policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws governing the requirements and processes for approving, denying approval of, imposing corrective action on, or unapproving schools from which applicants obtain their education, as specified. Existing law requires the council, on or before one year from the date the council receives an initial application for approval as a school, to approve the school, propose to deny approval of the school, or notify the school that corrective action is required, and authorizes the council to deny the application of a school that fails to adequately rectify the deficiencies. Existing law authorizes a school to appeal the council's final decision to deny approval of the school, and requires the appeal to be heard at the next board of directors meeting, as specified. This bill would require the council to notify the school of its right to appeal pursuant to these provisions at the time of the final decision. Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that, among other things, the Massage Therapy Act enables consumers and local government to more easily identify certified massage professionals and provide for consistent statewide certification and oversight of massage professionals. Existing law repeals the Massage Therapy Act on January 1, 2026. This bill would also state the intent of the Legislature that, among other things, both state and local regulation of massage therapy reflect the recognized status of certified massage professionals as health care providers. The bill would instead repeal the act on January 1, 2030. Existing law, the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, requires, with specified exceptions, that all meetings of a state body be open and public and all persons be permitted to attend any meeting of a state body. The act imposes various requirements on a state body holding a meeting subject to the act, including, among other things, requiring the state body to provide notice of its meeting to any person who requests that notice in writing. The Massage Therapy Act requires meetings of the council to be subject to the rules of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, and authorizes the board to adopt additional policies and procedures that provide greater transparency to certificate holders and the public than required by the act. This bill would, except as otherwise provided in the Massage Therapy Act, require meetings of the council to be governed by either Rosenberg's Rules of Order or Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. The bill would require the council to provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation in the adoption, amendment, or repeal of any policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws that substantially impact the rights, benefits, privileges, duties, obligations, or responsibilities of individuals or entities subject to certification or approval by the council, including, among other things, actions by the council to increase fees. In this regard, the bill would require the council, at a minimum, to publish the complete text of any policies, procedures, rules, or bylaws proposed for adoption, amendment, or repeal along with a summary of the changes being considered for a period of at least 45 calendar days before the adoption, amendment, or repeal, and to accept written public comments during the 45-day period and allow further public comment during a meeting held for these purposes. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires state and local agencies to make their records available for public inspection, unless an exemption from disclosure applies. This bill would require the council, beginning July 1, 2027, and to the extent practicable, to make the records of the council available for public inspection in a manner consistent with the California Public Records Act, as specified, and would authorize the council to charge for the direct costs of responding to requests for records, as specified. (2) Existing law establishes the California Private Postsecondary Education Act of 2009, which provides for student protections and regulatory oversight of private postsecondary educational institutions, as defined, in the state. The act is enforced by the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education within the Department of Consumer Affairs. Existing law requires an institution with an approval to operate under the act that knows that it is being investigated by an oversight entity other than the bureau to report that investigation, as defined, to the bureau in writing within 30 days of the institution's first knowledge of the investigation, and requires an institution with an approval to operate under the act that is the subject of a judgment by, a regulatory action by, increased oversight or monitoring by, or a settlement with, any oversight entity other than the bureau to report it to the bureau within 30 days. Existing law defines "oversight entity" for these purposes to include, among other entities, a governmental agency. This bill would also include any private entity authorized pursuant to any provision of the Business and Professions Code to approve schools or educational programs for purposes of a professional certification as an "oversight entity" for the above-described purposes.

(1) Existing law, the Pharmacy Law, requires the California State Board of Pharmacy within the Department of Consumer Affairs to license and regulate the practice of pharmacy, including pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and pharmacies. Existing law authorizes the board, with the approval of the Director of Consumer Affairs, to appoint an executive officer to exercise certain powers and to perform certain duties delegated by the board, as specified. Existing law repeals the provisions establishing the board and authorizing the appointment of an executive officer on January 1, 2026, rendering the board subject to review by the appropriate policy committees of the Legislature. This bill would provide that the board has exclusive authority to administer and enforce the Pharmacy Law related to the practice of pharmacy and the licensing of pharmacists and pharmacies, and would specify that its provisions do not prohibit the board from evaluating or acting regarding unlicensed activity, as provided. The bill would extend the repeal date of the above-described provisions to January 1, 2030. The bill would additionally require the board to establish a Pharmacy Technician Advisory Committee to advise and make recommendations to the board, as specified. Existing law specifies the fees for issuance or renewal of licenses issued pursuant to the Pharmacy Law, including, among others, pharmacy licenses. This bill would require the board to waive the application fee for a pharmacy operating a physical location in a medically underserved area, as defined, and would authorize the board to waive the fee for the annual renewal of a license if the licensee provides the board with certification of continued operation in the medically underserved area. (2) Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to perform various procedures and functions, including those related to dispensing or furnishing drugs or devices, as specified. Existing law generally requires a pharmacist's dispensing or furnishing drugs to be done pursuant to a valid prescription, except as provided in specified circumstances. Those exceptions include furnishing an FDA-approved opioid antagonist, emergency contraception drug therapy, self-administered hormonal contraceptives, nicotine replacement products, certain medications for individuals traveling outside of the United States, and certain HIV medications, as specified. Existing law requires certain conditions to be met for a pharmacist to authorize the initiation of a prescription under certain of those exceptions or to otherwise provide clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation. This bill would revise and recast the above-described provisions to authorize a pharmacist to, among other things, furnish dangerous devices, to furnish FDA-approved or authorized medications as part of preventative health care services that do not require a diagnosis, as specified, and to complete missing information on a prescription for a noncontrolled medication if there is evidence to support the change. The bill would require that a pharmacist provide those and other specified services or activities consistent with the accepted standard of care, defined to mean the degree of care a prudent and reasonable pharmacist licensed under the Pharmacy Law, with similar education, training, experience, resources, and setting, would use in a similar situation. The bill would make nonsubstantive, conforming changes. Existing law requires the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation that a pharmacist provides to be provided to a health care professional or to a patient. This bill would authorize a pharmacist to provide the clinical advice, services, information, or patient consultation to a patient's agent. Existing law, until January 1, 2026, authorizes a pharmacist to furnish COVID-19 oral therapeutics, as defined, following a positive test for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in accordance with specified requirements. This bill would delete the January 1, 2026, repeal date, thereby extending this authorization indefinitely. Existing law prohibits a dangerous drug from being refilled without the authorization of the prescriber, except under specified circumstances. Under those circumstances, existing law requires a pharmacist to make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. This bill would remove the above-described requirement that the pharmacist make every reasonable effort to contact the prescriber. Existing law authorizes a pharmacist to dispense not more than a 90-day supply of a dangerous drug other than a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription that specifies an initial quantity of less than a 90-day supply followed by periodic refills of that amount if certain requirements are met. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist from dispensing a greater supply pursuant to that provision if the prescriber indicates that there is to be no change to the quantity of the refill, as specified. This bill would remove that prohibition. Existing law authorizes a pharmacy to dispense epinephrine auto-injectors to a prehospital emergency medical care person or lay rescuer for the purpose of rendering emergency care, as specified. This bill would remove the above-described authorization. (3) Existing law authorizes a licensed pharmacist to perform additional functions if the licensee is recognized by the board as "an advanced practice pharmacist" by meeting certain requirements. Those additional functions include, among others, performing patient assessments, ordering and interpreting drug therapy-related tests, and initiating, adjusting, or discontinuing drug therapy, as specified. The requirements for recognition as an advanced practice pharmacist include having completed a combination of specified certifications, postgraduate residencies, or experience under a collaborative practice agreement or protocol with a physician. Existing law also requires an advanced practice pharmacist to complete 10 hours of continuing education in addition to the continuing education otherwise required at the time of a second or subsequent license renewal. This bill would revise those and other related provisions to refer to those licensees as "advanced pharmacist practitioners," instead of as "advanced practice pharmacists." (4) Existing law prohibits any person from furnishing or dispensing any dangerous drug or device on the internet for delivery to any person in California without a prescription issued pursuant to a "good faith prior examination," as provided. This bill would instead refer to that examination as an "appropriate prior examination." (5) Existing law authorizes the board to issue citations containing fines and orders of abatement for violations of specified law, as provided. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action against a chain community pharmacy under common ownership or management for fines for a violation of the Pharmacy Law that was expressly encouraged by the common owner or manager, as provided. This bill would instead apply those fines for a violation that was expressly encouraged by any owner or manager of the chain community pharmacy. Existing law authorizes the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law within 5 years by 3 or more pharmacies operating under common ownership or management within a chain community pharmacy, as specified. Existing law provides a pharmacy with a defense if it establishes that the violation was contrary to a written policy that was communicated by the common owner or manager to all employees where the violation occurred. Existing law also provides a defense if the pharmacy establishes that, within 6 months after the violation, the common owner or manager corrected all unlawful policies, communicated the change in policies, and provided the board with proof of abatement of the violation, as specified. This bill would, for the defense that the violation was contrary to a written policy, also require the entity to establish that it has complied with the policy. The bill would revise the above-described corrective-actions defense by allowing those actions to be undertaken by any owner or manager of the pharmacy. The bill would additionally authorize the board to bring an action for fines for repeated violations of materially similar provisions of the Pharmacy Law against a mail order pharmacy, defined as a nonresident pharmacy that dispenses medications and ships them to patients via the postal service or other mail delivery method, as provided. The bill would require the board, in determining the amount of the fine, to consider mitigating and aggregating factors, as specified. (6) Existing law prohibits the board from issuing a pharmacy license to a person who has a shared community or financial interest with a person authorized to prescribe or write a prescription, as provided. This bill would establish an exception to the above-described prohibition under which the applicant and the prescriber would be required to provide statements that the prescriber disavows any community or financial interest in the license and to transmute any interest in the license that is shared community property into the separate property of the applicant, as provided. The bill would prohibit a pharmacy granted a license pursuant to this exception from filling any prescriptions issued or prescribed by a person who shares a community or other financial interest with the licensee or a prescriber at the same place of business as that person if the prescriber owns an interest greater than 10% in the practice issuing the prescription. Existing law authorizes the board to issue a retired license to a licensed pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the holder of a retired license to restore their license to active status by passing the examination that is required for initial licensure with the board. This bill would instead authorize the holder of a retired license to request to restore their license to active status within 3 years of issuance of the retired license by paying a renewal fee and successfully completing certain continuing education within the 2 years preceding the request, as specified. If more than 3 years have elapsed since the issuance of the retired license, the bill would require the holder of the retired license to reapply for licensure as a pharmacist, as specified. Existing law authorizes the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime or subjected to formal discipline that would be grounds for denial of a federal registration to distribute controlled substances. This bill would also authorize the board to deny a license application if the applicant has been convicted of a crime involving fraud in violation of state or federal laws related to health care or involving financial identity theft. Existing law requires certain licensed facilities to perform a self-assessment evaluating compliance with specified provisions of the Pharmacy Law, as provided. This bill would require all licensed facilities to complete a self-assessment every odd-numbered year and within 30 days of certain changes to the license, management personnel, and location, as provided. The bill would require this self-assessment to be signed under penalty of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program by expanding the crime of perjury. (7) Existing law requires a pharmacy to designate a pharmacist-in-charge and notify the board within 30 days of that designation, as specified. Existing law authorizes the pharmacist-in-charge to, among other things, make staffing decisions and notify store management of dangerous conditions, as specified. This bill would require the pharmacist-in-charge to determine the appropriate pharmacist-to-technician ratio, within prescribed limits, and prohibit anyone else from interfering with the exercise of the pharmacist-in-charge's independent professional judgment in setting this ratio. The bill would additionally require the pharmacist-in-charge to notify the owner or hospital administrator of dangerous conditions, as specified. Existing law provides for the licensing of nonresident pharmacies, as specified. Existing law prohibits a pharmacist at a nonresident pharmacy whose license has been revoked from prescribing a dangerous drug or providing other pharmacy-related services, as specified. This bill would, beginning July 1, 2026, require a nonresident pharmacy, as a prerequisite to registering with the board and ongoing licensure, to identify a California-licensed pharmacist employed and working at the nonresident pharmacy to be proposed to serve as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would also require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days of designating a pharmacist-in-charge, to notify the board of the identity and license number of that pharmacist and the date they were designated, as specified. The bill would require the nonresident pharmacy, within 90 days, to notify the board of a pharmacist-in-charge ceasing to act as the pharmacist-in-charge and to propose another pharmacist to take over as the pharmacist-in-charge. The bill would additionally, beginning July 1, 2026, prohibit a nonresident pharmacy from permitting a pharmacist-in-charge who is not licensed in California from working at a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would authorize the board to inspect a nonresident pharmacy. The bill would require a nonresident pharmacy to deposit a reasonable amount, as determined by the board, necessary to cover the board's estimated reasonable costs of performing the inspection, as specified. (8) Existing law limits a pharmacy with only one pharmacist to one pharmacy technician performing packaging, manipulative, repetitive, or other nondiscretionary tasks. This bill would increase this limit to 3 pharmacy technicians performing those tasks. (9) Existing law requires a pharmacy to preserve certain records, as provided. This bill would require a pharmacy to additionally maintain records related to prescribed policies and procedures in a readily retrievable format. The bill would also impose requirements related to electronically maintained records. (10) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4064.5 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 418 to be operative only if this bill and SB 418 is enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 260 to be operative only if this bill and AB 260 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (11) Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law declares the public policy of the state regarding labor organization, including, among other things, that it is necessary for a worker to have full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment, and to be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labor, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or in self-organization or in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Existing law establishes the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) in state government as a means of resolving disputes and enforcing the statutory duties and rights of specified public employers and employees under various acts regulating collective bargaining. Under existing law, PERB has the power and duty to investigate an unfair practice charge and to determine whether the charge is justified and the appropriate remedy for the unfair practice. Existing law, the federal National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) , establishes a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating unfair labor practices on the part of employers and labor organizations in industries affecting interstate commerce, and vests in the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) the power to conduct elections to determine employee representatives and to prevent unfair labor practices affecting commerce. Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires that public records, as defined, be available to the public for inspection and made promptly available to any person. This bill would expand PERB's jurisdiction by authorizing a worker, to petition PERB to protect and enforce prescribed rights under specified circumstances, including if the worker is employed in a position subject to the NLRA but the NLRB has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction. The bill would authorize PERB to, among other things, decide unfair labor practice cases pursuant to a specified timeline and order all appropriate relief for a violation, including civil penalties, as prescribed. In order to pursue relief from PERB, the bill would require a covered worker or their representative to file an unfair practice charge or petition that includes specified information, including, where applicable, the original charge or petition filed with the NLRB. The bill would require PERB to hold the supporting documentation and evidence confidential and maintain it as part of its investigatory file and would exempt this documentation and evidence from the California Public Records Act. If PERB determines, among other things, it has insufficient resources to process certain cases or doing so would prevent it from meeting specified statutory deadlines, the bill would require PERB to process and prioritize charges, as specified. The bill would also establish the Public Employment Relations Board Enforcement Fund (fund) in the State Treasury, would require the above-described civil penalties to be deposited into the fund, and would make moneys in the fund available upon appropriation by the Legislature to PERB for the purpose of administering the above-specified provisions. The bill would authorize PERB to rely on its own decisions and precedent under the NLRA and would authorize review of its decisions by a state appellate court, as specified. Existing law, the Alatorre-Zenovich-Dunlap-Berman Agricultural Labor Relations Act of 1975, grants agricultural employees the right to form and join labor organizations and engage in collective bargaining, as specified, and prohibits agricultural employers and labor organizations from engaging in unfair labor practices. Those provisions establish the Agricultural Labor Relations Board (ALRB) and empower the ALRB to prevent any person from engaging in those practices. Existing law establishes various definitions for these purposes. Existing law requires the ALRB to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA. This bill would specify that the ALRB has exclusive jurisdiction in all phases of the administration of the act, and to determine whether any person or entity meets one or more of those definitions. The bill would instead authorize the board to follow applicable precedents of the NLRA, but would not obligate the board to follow precedents where the ALRB deems it inappropriate to do so. This bill would make related findings and declarations and would make its provisions severable. 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.

(1) The California Constitution provides for the fundamental rights of privacy and to choose to have an abortion. Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, prohibits the state from denying or interfering with a pregnant person's right to choose or obtain an abortion before the viability of the fetus, or when the abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. Existing law prohibits conditions or restrictions from being imposed on abortion access for incarcerated persons and committed juveniles. Existing laws requiring parental consent for abortion and making assisting in or advertising abortion a crime have been held to be unconstitutional. This bill would repeal those unconstitutional provisions and delete obsolete references to criminal abortion penalties. The bill would make technical changes to provisions authorizing abortion for incarcerated and committed persons. (2) Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for labeling requirements of drugs and devices. The Pharmacy Law requires a pharmacist to dispense a prescription in a container that is correctly labeled with specified information, including the name of the prescriber and the name address of the pharmacy. A violation of the Pharmacy Law is a misdemeanor. This bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to adopt regulations to include or exclude mifepristone and other medication abortion drugs from the requirements of the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, but would exclude the drugs from those requirements if the drugs are no longer approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , as specified. The bill would authorize a pharmacist to dispense mifepristone or other drug used for medication abortion without the name of the patient, the name of the prescriber, or the name and address of the pharmacy, subject to specified requirements. The bill would require the pharmacist to maintain a log, as specified, that is not open to inspection by law enforcement without a subpoena, and would prohibit the disclosure of the information to an individual or entity from another state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a pharmacist for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in specified other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs, and would prohibit the California State Board of Pharmacy from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. By expanding the scope of a crime under the Pharmacy Law, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law establishes various healing arts boards in the Department of Consumer Affairs that license and regulate various healing arts licensees. This bill would prohibit subjecting a healing arts practitioner who is authorized to prescribe, furnish, order, or administer dangerous drugs to civil, criminal, disciplinary, or other administrative action for prescribing, furnishing, ordering, or administering mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy under federal law, as specified. The bill would state that the laws of another state or federal actions that interfere with the authority of a healing arts practitioner to take specified actions relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs are against the public policy of this state. The bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing actions against an applicant or licensee for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs. (4) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of clinics and health facilities by the State Department of Public Health. This bill would prohibit criminal, civil, professional discipline, or licensing action against a licensed clinic or health facility for transporting or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. The bill would prohibit the department from denying an application for licensure or taking disciplinary action against an applicant or licensee for engaging in certain acts relating to mifepristone or other medical abortion drugs. (5) Existing law prohibits a health care provider from knowingly disclosing, transmitting, transferring, sharing or granting access to identifiable medical information related to an individual seeking, obtaining, providing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion that is lawful under the laws of this state, as specified and subject to specified exclusions. Existing law exempts a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for failing to comply this prohibition before January 31, 2026, if the health care provider is working diligently and in good faith to comply with the prohibition. This bill would exempt a health care provider from liability for damages or from civil or enforcement actions for an additional year, until January 31, 2027. (6) 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 disability and health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law prohibits a health care service plan contract or a group or individual disability insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage of a drug on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA. Existing law prohibits a contract between a health care service plan or health insurer and a health care services provider from containing any term that would result in termination or nonrenewal of the contract or otherwise penalize the provider based on a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. Existing law also prohibits a health care service plan or health insurer from discriminating against a licensed provider solely on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or another professional disciplinary action in another state if the judgment, conviction, or professional disciplinary action is solely based on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive care that would be lawful if provided in California. This bill would prohibit a health care service plan contract or a group or individual health insurance policy or certificate that covers prescription drugs from limiting or excluding coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone solely on the basis that the drug is prescribed for a use that is different from the use for which that drug has been approved for marketing by the FDA or that varies from an approved risk evaluation and mitigation strategy, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would require those contracts and policies to include coverage for brand name or generic mifepristone, even if it has not been approved by the FDA if specified requirements are met, except if the state deems it necessary to address an imminent health or safety concern. The bill would prohibit a plan or insurer from contracting with a health care services provider to terminate or nonrenew the contract or otherwise penalize the provider, or from discriminating against a licensed provider, for manufacturing, transporting, or engaging in certain other acts relating to mifepristone or other medication abortion drugs that are lawful in California. Because a violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (7) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 4076 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by AB 1503 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1503 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (8) 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. (9) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

This measure would designate November 1, 2025, as Fernando Valenzuela Day, to highlight the positive impact his legacy created in the Latino and Hispanic community.

This measure would recognize the importance of California Native American Day, celebrated this year on September 26, 2025, and the annual California Indian Cultural Awareness Conference, to the enhancement of awareness of California Indian culture.

This measure would declare the Legislature's opposition to the unlawful Executive Order No. 14160, entitled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," ending birthright citizenship as enshrined in the United States Constitution and would affirm the Legislature's commitment to birthright citizenship, as specified.

This measure would declare the month of March to be March4Water Month in California and would encourage all Californians to participate in activities and programs during March4Water Month to promote awareness, education, and actions that prioritize water as a vital resource for the state's future.

Maddy summaryACR 95 designates June 21, 2025, as the International Day of Yoga in California. This ceremonial resolution formally recognizes the day for public awareness but has no legal effect or policy changes. It directly affects California residents by encouraging community observances of the international event. The measure is purely symbolic, with no funding, regulations, or new obligations for state agencies or individuals.