Existing federal law provides for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to establish a food assistance program, known as the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) , to provide assistance to a noncitizen of the United States if the person's immigration status meets the eligibility criteria of SNAP in effect on August 21, 1996, but the person is not eligible for SNAP benefits solely due to their immigration status, as specified. Existing law also makes eligible for the program an applicant who is otherwise eligible for the program, but who entered the United States on or after August 22, 1996, if the applicant is sponsored and the applicant meets one of a list of criteria, including that the applicant, after entry into the United States, is a victim of the sponsor or the spouse of the sponsor if the spouse is living with the sponsor. Existing law, to become operative on the date that the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) has been updated to perform the necessary automation, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, makes an individual 55 years of age or older eligible for the program if the individual's immigration status is the sole basis for their ineligibility for CalFresh benefits. This bill would delete the above-described contingency and, commencing on October 1, 2027, remove that age limitation and make any individual eligible for the program if the individual's immigration status is the sole basis for their ineligibility for CalFresh benefits. By extending eligibility for CFAP, which is administered by the counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Sponsored bills
Existing federal law provides for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing law requires the State Department of Social Services to establish a food assistance program, known as the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP) , to provide assistance to a noncitizen of the United States if the person's immigration status meets the eligibility criteria of SNAP in effect on August 21, 1996, but the person is not eligible for SNAP benefits solely due to their immigration status, as specified. Existing law also makes eligible for the program an applicant who is otherwise eligible for the program, but who entered the United States on or after August 22, 1996, if the applicant is sponsored and the applicant meets one of a list of criteria, including that the applicant, after entry into the United States, is a victim of the sponsor or the spouse of the sponsor if the spouse is living with the sponsor. Existing law, to become operative on the date that the department notifies the Legislature that the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS) has been updated to perform the necessary automation, and subject to an appropriation in the annual Budget Act, makes an individual 55 years of age or older eligible for the program if the individual's immigration status is the sole basis for their ineligibility for CalFresh benefits. This bill would remove that age limitation and make any individual eligible for the program if the individual's immigration status is the sole basis for their ineligibility for CalFresh benefits. By extending eligibility for CFAP, which is administered by the counties, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(1) 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 generally authorizes a health care service plan or disability insurer to use utilization review, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. Existing law requires these decisions to be made within 30 days, or less than 72 hours when the enrollee faces an imminent and serious threat to their health. Existing law requires a health care service plan to establish a grievance system to resolve grievances within 30 days, but limits that timeframe to 3 days when the enrollee faces an imminent and serious threat to their health. Existing law requires a plan to provide a written explanation for its grievance decisions, as specified. This bill would require that utilization review decisions be made within 72 hours from the health care service plan's receipt of the clinical information reasonably necessary to make the determination when the enrollee's condition is urgent. If the plan lacks the information reasonably necessary to make a decision regarding an urgent request, the bill would require the plan to notify the enrollee and provider about the information necessary to complete the request within 24 hours of receiving the request. The bill would require the plan to notify the enrollee and the provider of the decision within a reasonable amount of time, but not later than 48 hours after specified circumstances occur. If a health care service plan fails to make a utilization review decision, or provide notice of a decision, within the specified timelines, the bill would require the health care service plan to treat the request for authorization as a grievance and provide notice with specified information to the enrollee that a grievance has commenced, if the plan has received the information necessary to make a decision. This bill would require a plan's grievance system to include expedited review of urgent grievances, as specified. The bill would require a plan to communicate its final grievance determination within 72 hours of receipt if urgent and 30 days if nonurgent, except as specified. If a plan fails to make a utilization review decision within the applicable timelines, the bill would require a grievance to be automatically resolved in favor of the enrollee, except in specified circumstances. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes the Independent Medical Review System in the Department of Managed Health Care to review grievances involving a disputed health care service. Existing law authorizes an enrollee to apply to the department for an independent medical review of a decision regarding health care services based in whole or in part on a finding that the disputed services are not medically necessary within 6 months of any specified qualifying periods and authorizes the director to extend that deadline if the circumstances of a case warrant the extension. This bill would extend the above deadline to 12 months beyond the specified qualifying periods. The bill would require the plan to provide specified correspondence and documents to an enrollee and their representative, if applicable, if the enrollee has submitted a grievance for review under the Independent Medical Review System. The bill would require the department to provide an enrollee and their representative a reasonable opportunity to respond to communications between the department and the plan before the grievance is resolved. The bill would prohibit the department and its independent medical review organization from engaging in ex parte communication with a plan, enrollee, or their representatives during the grievance process, except as specified. (3) Existing law provides for the regulation of disability insurers, including health insurers, by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a disability insurer, including an insurer that delegates utilization review or utilization management functions to medical groups, independent practice associations, or other contracting providers, to comply with specified requirements and limitations on their utilization review or utilization management functions. Existing law requires a decision to approve, modify, or deny a request by a provider before, or concurrent with, the provision of health care services to insureds to be made no more than 5 business days from the insurer's receipt of information necessary to make the determination. If the insured's condition poses an imminent and serious threat to the insured's health, existing law requires the decision to be made within no more than 72 hours. Existing law requires a decision to be communicated to the requesting provider within 24 hours of the decision, but requires a decision resulting in denial, delay, or modification of all or part of the requested health care service to be communicated within 2 business days, except as specified. This bill would limit the applicability of the above-described provisions to health insurers. The bill would require a decision to approve, modify, or deny a request by a provider before the provision of health care services to be communicated no more than 5 business days from the health insurer's receipt of the request. If the insurer lacks information reasonably necessary to make the decision, the bill would require the insurer to notify the insured and provider within 5 business days from receipt of request and to afford the insured and provider at least 45 days from receipt of that notice to provide the information. If the insured's condition is urgent, as defined, the bill would require a decision to approve, modify, or deny a request by a provider before, or concurrent with, the provision of health care services to be communicated no more than 72 hours from the insurer's receipt of the request. If the insurer lacks information reasonably necessary to make the decision, the bill would require the insurer to notify the insured and provider no later than 24 hours from receipt of request and to afford the insured and provider at least 48 hours from receipt of that notice to provide the information. The bill would require an insurer to communicate a decision to modify or deny a concurrent care request, as specified, within 24 hours from the insurer's receipt of the request. If an insurer fails to provide notice of a decision, the bill would require an insurer to treat the request as a grievance and immediately notify the insured and provider that a grievance has commenced, if the insurer has received the information necessary to make a decision. (4) Existing law establishes the Independent Medical Review System in the department to review grievances involving a disputed health care service. Existing law requires a disability insurance policy issued, amended, renewed, or delivered on or after January 1, 2000, to provide an insured with the opportunity to seek an independent medical review when health care services have been denied, modified, or delayed if the decision was based in whole or in part on a finding that the proposed health care services are not medically necessary. Existing law authorizes an insured to apply to the department for an independent medical review when specified conditions are met. If a grievance is filed internally with an insurer, this bill would require an insurer to acknowledge receipt of the grievance within 24 hours of receipt if urgent and 5 calendar days if nonurgent, and then communicate its final grievance determination within 72 hours of receipt if urgent and 30 days if nonurgent. Upon notice from the department to a health insurer that an insured has submitted a complaint to the department, the bill would require an insurer to respond within 24 hours if a complaint is urgent, or within 5 calendar days regarding a nonurgent complaint. This bill would require the department to determine whether or not a complaint is urgent, as specified, unless the insured's provider has already designated the complaint as urgent. The bill would require the insurer to offer to provide specified correspondence and documents to an insured and their representative, if applicable, if the insured has submitted a complaint or independent medical review case to the department. The bill would require the department to provide an insured and their representative a reasonable opportunity to respond to communications between the department and the insurer before the grievance is resolved. The bill would prohibit an insurer from engaging in ex parte communication with the independent medical review organization deciding a case. (5) 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.
Maddy summarySenate Resolution 114 is a non-binding tribute from the California State Senate honoring President Joseph Biden for his extensive public service career. The resolution details his background, legislative achievements, and leadership roles as a senator, vice president, and president, specifically highlighting his work on infrastructure, climate action, and pandemic response. It concludes by formally thanking the President for stepping down to allow new leaders to take office and directs the Senate Secretary to distribute copies of the resolution.
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, including certain dental services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Under existing law, early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (EPSDT) services are covered under Medi-Cal for an individual under 21 years of age in accordance with certain federal provisions. Under existing law, for persons 21 years of age or older, laboratory-processed crowns on posterior teeth are a covered benefit when medically necessary to restore a posterior tooth back to normal function based on the criteria specified in the Medi-Cal Dental Manual of Criteria. This bill, The Smile Act, for purposes of the above-described Medi-Cal coverage for laboratory-processed crowns, would remove the condition that the tooth be posterior and would apply the coverage to persons 13 years of age or older. The bill would also add, as a covered Medi-Cal benefit for persons of any age, subject to prior authorization, a dental implant if tooth extraction or removal is medically necessary or if the corresponding tooth is missing. The bill would condition this coverage on there being no other covered functional alternatives for prosthetic replacement to correct the person's dental condition, as specified, on the person being without medical conditions for which dental implant surgery would be contraindicated, on receipt of any necessary federal approvals, and on the availability of federal financial participation. Under the bill, the above-described provisions would not be construed to exclude Medi-Cal coverage for laboratory-processed crowns on teeth or dental implants if otherwise required under EPSDT services.
Existing law, the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, provides for the regulation of various subjects relating to the manufacturing, processing, labeling, advertising, and sale of food, drugs, and cosmetics, under the administration and enforcement of the State Department of Public Health (department) and in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A violation of the act is a crime. This bill would add kratom products, as defined, to the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law and require processors of kratom products to register with the department. The bill would authorize the department to establish an annual fee for processors and would authorize the fee to be based on certain criteria, including annual sales in California. The bill would prescribe specified quantities of alkaloids present in kratom products and would establish labeling and packaging requirements. The bill would require that kratom products be registered with the department annually, which would include certification by a laboratory specifying that the product meets certain qualifications. The bill would prohibit the sale of kratom leaf and kratom products to those under 21 years of age and would prohibit the sale and manufacture of a kratom product that is attractive to children or an inhalable kratom product. The bill would authorize the department to take various enforcement actions, including executing interagency agreements for the implementation of these provisions, among others. The bill would authorize a kratom processor who is operating in conformance with these provisions and in good faith compliance with their responsibilities to manufacture or sell kratom or kratom products without authorization until April 1, 2025. By expanding the scope of a crime, the bill would create 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 various specified special circumstances, including murder committed for financial gain or committed during the commission or attempted commission of certain felonies, which, if found true as specified, require a defendant found guilty of murder in the first degree to be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole. Existing law, added by Proposition 115 of the June 5, 1990, statewide primary election, prohibits a judge from striking or dismissing any special circumstance that is admitted by plea or found true by a jury or court, as specified. Existing law generally authorizes a court to dismiss an action or to strike or dismiss an enhancement in the furtherance of justice, except if dismissal of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute. This bill would authorize an individual serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a conviction in which one or more special circumstances were found to be true to petition for recall and resentencing if the offense occurred before June 5, 1990, and the individual has served at least 25 years in custody. The bill would exempt individuals from relief under these provisions under certain circumstances, including if the individual was convicted of first degree murder of a peace officer, as specified. The bill would authorize the court to modify the petitioner's sentence to impose a lesser sentence and apply any changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion, or to vacate the petitioner's conviction and impose judgment on a lesser included offense, as specified. The bill would require a court to consider and afford great weight to evidence offered by the petitioner to prove that specified mitigating circumstances are present. The bill would provide that proof of the presence of one or more specified mitigating circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing a special circumstance, unless the court finds that dismissal of the special circumstance is not appropriate. The bill would require the court to appoint the State Public Defender or other qualified counsel for an indigent petitioner. The California Constitution, as amended by Proposition 9, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008: Marsy's Law, at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election, entitles the victim of a crime to specified rights, including to reasonable notice of all public proceedings, including all parole or other postconviction release proceedings. The bill would clarify that these proceedings constitute a "post-conviction release proceeding" under Marsy's Law.
(1) The Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law allow various credits against the taxes imposed by those laws. This bill would, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, allow a credit against the taxes imposed by those laws for portions of the costs for qualified services paid or incurred by a qualified taxpayer. The bill would define "qualified taxpayer" for this purpose to mean an eligible local news organization or a qualified broadcast station, as those terms are defined. The bill would require a taxpayer to request a tentative credit reservation from the Franchise Tax Board in the form and manner prescribed by the Franchise Tax Board, and would limit the amount of credit allocated by the Franchise Tax Board per calendar year. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to prioritize reservations by qualified small publications, as defined and specified. The bill would allow a payment from the continuously appropriated Tax Relief and Refund Account for an allowable credit in excess of tax liability to a qualified renter, as provided. By authorizing new payments from the Tax Relief and Refund Account in excess of personal income tax liabilities, the bill would make an appropriation. (2) The Personal Income Tax Law and Corporation Tax Law impose taxes measured by income. Those taxes are administered by the Franchise Tax Board pursuant to specified law, the violation of which is a crime. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, and in addition to the taxes imposed under the Personal Income Tax Law and the Corporation Tax Law, would impose a tax upon gross receipts derived from data extraction transactions at a rate of 7.25% of those gross receipts in excess of $2,500,000,000. The bill would define a "data extraction transaction" for these purposes to mean a transaction where a person sells user information or access to users to advertisers and the person engages in a barter by providing services to a user in full or partial exchange for the ability to display advertisements to the user or collect data about the user, except as provided. The bill would exclude a news media entity, as defined, from the provisions of this tax as either a taxpayer or a user. The bill would establish the Data Extraction Mitigation Fee Fund in the State Treasury, and would direct all revenues from the tax, less refunds and reimbursements, be deposited into the fund, as specified. The bill would appropriate $15,000,000 for journalism fellowships, as specified, and would require the remaining moneys in the fund, except as provided, to be used, upon appropriation, for grants to eligible nonprofit local news organizations administered by the Franchise Tax Board, as specified. The bill would require the Franchise Tax Board to administer this tax in accordance with existing franchise and income tax law provisions, the violation of which is a crime. By expanding the crimes related to the franchise and income tax laws, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) The Personal Income Tax Law and Corporation Tax Law, in modified conformity with federal income tax laws, generally allow various deductions in computing the income that is subject to tax imposed under those laws, including miscellaneous itemized deductions that are allowed only to the extent that the aggregate amount of those deductions exceeds 2% of adjusted gross income. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2026, would allow a deduction in computing the income that is subject to those laws equal to the amount of taxes paid by the taxpayer under the above-described data extraction transaction tax. (4) Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure to contain, among other things, specific goals that the tax expenditure will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements. This bill would include additional information required for any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure. (5) This bill would make findings and declarations related to a gift of public funds. (6) 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. (7) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Maddy summaryThis bill establishes Transgender History Month in California to recognize the state's significant contributions to transgender history and activism. The resolution highlights key historical figures and events, such as early Indigenous gender variance, the Cooper Do-nuts and Compton's Cafeteria riots, and the founding of major support organizations. By formally acknowledging these milestones, the measure aims to educate the public about the long-standing presence and struggles of transgender people in California.
Existing law creates a Research Advisory Panel, as specified, to conduct hearings on, and in other ways study, research projects concerning cannabis or hallucinogenic drugs in this state and the treatment of abuse of controlled substances. 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. Existing law authorizes certain state bodies to hold closed session meetings for certain purposes, including allowing the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery or its auxiliary committees to hold closed sessions for the purpose of discussing trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information. This bill would authorize the Research Advisory Panel to hold closed sessions for the purpose of discussing, reviewing, and approving research projects that contain sensitive and confidential information, including trade secrets, intellectual property, or proprietary information in its possession, the public disclosure of which is prohibited by law. The Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act authorizes a state body that is an advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, advisory subcommittee, or similar multimember advisory body to hold an open meeting by teleconference, subject to specified requirements. This bill would deem the Research Advisory Panel a multimember advisory body solely for the purposes of the above-described teleconferencing provisions. The bill would require the panel to provide a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2026, that provides an update on the backlog of applications, as specified. This bill would make its provisions repealed or inoperative, as specified, on January 1, 2027. 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. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.