Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health to implement various programs throughout the state relating to public health, including licensing and regulating health facilities and control of infectious diseases. This bill would require the State Department of Public Health and the Office of Emergency Services, in coordination with other state agencies, to, upon appropriation and as necessary, establish a personal protective equipment (PPE) stockpile. The bill would require the department to establish guidelines for the procurement, management, and distribution of PPE, taking into account, among other things, the amount of each type of PPE that would be required for all health care workers and essential workers in the state during a 90-day pandemic or other health emergency. Existing law requires every employer to furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, and to adopt and use practices that are reasonably adequate to render the employment and place of employment safe and healthful. The bill would, commencing January 1, 2023, or one year after the adoption of specified regulations, whichever is later, require health care employers, including clinics, health facilities, and home health agencies, to maintain an inventory of new, unexpired PPE for use in the event of a declared state of emergency and would require the inventory to be at least sufficient for 45 days of surge consumption, as determined by regulation, as specified. The bill would assess a civil penalty on a health care employer who violates that requirement, as specified. The bill would authorize the Department of Industrial Relations to exempt a health care employer from the above-required civil penalties if the department determines that supply chain limitations make meeting the mandated level of supplies for a specific type of PPE infeasible and the health care employer has made a reasonable attempt to obtain PPE, or if the health care employer has made a showing that they are not in possession of the mandated level of supplies due to reasons beyond their control, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Industrial Relations to adopt regulations, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, setting forth requirements for determining 45-day surge capacity levels, as specified, for a health care employer's PPE inventory. The bill would also establish the Personal Protective Equipment Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives from an association representing skilled nursing facilities, a statewide association representing physicians, and labor organizations that represent health care workers, among other groups, to make recommendations for the development of guidelines for the procurement, management, and distribution of PPE, as specified.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, which is administered by the State Department of Public Health. Existing law requires the department to adopt regulations establishing a standard of care that include the determination of specified risk factors for lead exposure, including a child's time spent in a home, school, or building built before 1978. Existing law requires the department to ensure appropriate case management for children who have been identified with lead poisoning, and authorizes the department to contract with any public or private entity, including any local agency, to perform that duty. This bill would add several risk factors to be considered as part of the standard of care specified in regulations, including a child's residency in or visit to a foreign country. The bill would require the department to update its formula for allocating funds to a local agency that contracts with the department to administer the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, and to revise funding allocations before each contract cycle. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to enter contracts with managed care plans to provide Medi-Cal services, and imposes requirements on the Medi-Cal managed care plans, including network adequacy standards. Under existing law, Medi-Cal covers early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services for individuals under 21 years of age, consistent with federal law. Existing regulations of the department require a health care provider who performs a periodic health assessment of a child who receives services from a publicly funded program for low-income children, to order the child screened for lead poisoning, as specified, unless a parent or guardian of the child, or other person with legal authority to withhold consent, refuses to consent to the screening or if the risk of screening is a greater risk to the child's health than the risk of lead poisoning. Existing regulations also require the health care provider to provide oral or written guidance to a parent or guardian that includes information relating to the risk of childhood lead poisoning. This bill would require a contract between the department and a Medi-Cal managed care plan to require the Medi-Cal managed care plan, on a quarterly basis, to identify every enrollee who is a child without a record of completing the blood lead screening tests, and to remind the contracting network provider of the requirement to perform the required blood lead screening tests and the requirement to provide the oral or written guidance to a parent or guardian relating to risk of childhood lead poisoning. The bill would require the department to develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with those requirements would authorize the department to impose sanctions for a violation of those requirements. The bill would authorize the department to implement these provisions by means of plan or county letters, or other similar instructions.
Existing law establishes the State Department of Public Health within the California Health and Human Services Agency. This bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to establish the Office of Suicide Prevention within the department, would require the office to perform specified duties, including providing information and technical assistance to statewide and regional partners regarding best practices on suicide prevention policies and programs and reporting on progress to reduce rates of suicide, and authorize the office to apply for and use federal, state, and foundation grants. The bill would require the office to consult with the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission to implement suicide prevention efforts. The bill would require that the duties and responsibilities of the office be accomplished with existing staff and resources. The bill would make these provisions operative subject to an appropriation for these purposes in the annual Budget Act or another statute.
Existing law governs a patient's access to their health records. Existing law requires a health care provider, as defined, to provide a patient or the patient's representative with all or any part of the patient's medical records that the patient has a right to inspect, subject to the payment of clerical costs incurred in locating and making the records available, following a written request from the patient. Existing law requires the health care provider to provide one copy of the relevant portion of the patient's record at no charge if the patient or patient's representative presents proof to the provider that the records are needed to support an appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program, as defined. Existing law makes a willful violation of these provisions by specified health care providers an infraction. This bill would require a health care provider to provide an employee of a nonprofit legal services entity representing the patient a copy of the medical records at no charge under those conditions, and would include speech-language pathologists, audiologists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners within the definition of a health care provider. The bill would expand the definition of a public benefit program for these purposes to include the Cash Assistance Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled Legal Immigrants, and a government-funded housing subsidy or tenant-based housing assistance program. The bill additionally would require a health care provider to provide the records at no charge upon proof that the records are needed for a petition for U nonimmigrant status under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act or a self-petition for lawful permanent residency under the Violence Against Women Act. By expanding the requirements on health care providers and thereby expanding a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill also would prohibit a health care provider from charging a fee to a patient for filling out forms or providing information responsive to forms that support a claim or appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program. The bill would require the health care provider to provide information responsive to those portions of the form for which the health care provider has the information necessary to provide a medical opinion, as specified. The bill would authorize a health care provider to honor a request to disclose a patient record or complete a public benefit form that contains the written or electronic signature of the patient or the patient's personal representative. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, commonly known as the California Family Rights Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for a government employer or any employer with 50 or more employees, as specified, to refuse to grant a request by an employee, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child of the employee or to care for themselves, a child, a parent, or a spouse, as specified. Existing law authorizes an employer to refuse to grant the request if the employer employs less than 50 employees within 75 miles of the worksite where the employee is employed or if the employee is a salaried employee who is among the highest paid 10% of the employer's employees, as provided. Existing law, if both parents of a child are employed by the same employer, authorizes the employer to only grant both employees a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during the 12-month period. Existing law prohibits an employer from refusing to allow a female employee disabled by pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition to take a leave for a reasonable time of up to 4 months before returning to work. Existing law also prohibits an employer from refusing to maintain and pay for coverage under a group health plan for an employee who takes that leave, as specified. The California Family Rights Act specifies that those existing pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition leave provisions are separate and distinct from the protections provided by the California Family Rights Act. Existing law, the New Parent Leave Act, makes it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child. The New Parent Leave Act defines employee as a parent who has more than 12 months of service with the employer, who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, and who works at a worksite in which the employer employs at least 20 employees within 75 miles. This bill would expand the California Family Rights Act to make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer with 5 or more employees to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period to bond with a new child of the employee or to care for themselves or a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner, as specified. The bill would require an employer who employs both parents of a child to grant leave to each employee. The bill would also make it an unlawful employment practice for any employer to refuse to grant a request by an employee to take up to 12 workweeks of unpaid protected leave during any 12-month period due to a qualifying exigency related to the covered active duty or call to covered active duty of an employee's spouse, domestic partner, child, or parent in the Armed Forces of the United States. The bill would define employee for these purposes as an individual who has at least 1,250 hours of service with the employer during the previous 12-month period, unless otherwise provided.
Existing law, the Mobilehome Residency Law, governs the terms and conditions of residency in mobilehome parks. Under existing law, the management of a mobilehome park may not terminate or refuse to renew a tenancy, except pursuant to certain procedures, and upon giving written notice to the homeowner of not less than 60 days. This law, among other things, defines "management" to mean the owner of a mobilehome park or an agent or representative authorized to act on the owner's behalf in connection with matters relating to a tenancy in the park. Existing law defines a "resident" as a homeowner or other person who lawfully occupies a mobilehome. This bill would prohibit the management of a mobilehome park from terminating or attempting to terminate the tenancy of a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, on the grounds of failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement or failure to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges during a declared state of emergency or local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and during a 120-day time period after the state of emergency or local emergency is terminated, unless necessary to protect the public health and safety. The bill would also prohibit, during this timeframe, the management of a mobilehome park from issuing certain notices relating to rent increases, termination of tenancy, or refusal to renew tenancy. The bill would also prohibit a court from issuing a summons on a complaint for unlawful detainer within this timeframe for failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement or failure to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges, unless the court finds the action necessary to protect public health and safety. Existing law prohibits the management of a mobilehome park from terminating a tenancy unless for one of specified reasons, including, but not limited to, failure of the homeowner or resident to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement, as specified, and failure to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges for at least 5 days from the due date. Existing law requires, after the 5 days of failure to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges elapses, the management of the mobilehome park to provide the homeowner with a 3-day notice to pay or vacate the tenancy, as prescribed. Under existing law, an act or omission of the homeowner or resident does not constitute a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement unless and until the management has given the homeowner written notice of the alleged rule or regulation violation and the homeowner or resident has failed to adhere to the rule or regulation within 7 days, except as specified. This bill would require a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, to have 7 days from the date they receive a notice of a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park described above to notify the management in writing of their need to have additional time to comply with the notice. The bill, with exceptions, would require management that receives the described notice to grant the homeowner or resident the additional time requested to comply with the rule or regulation, but in no event more than one year. The bill would require a notice of a failure to comply with a reasonable rule or regulation of the park that is part of the rental agreement, as specified, issued during a declared state of emergency or local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and during a 120-day time period after the state of emergency or local emergency is terminated, to contain specified language describing these provisions, printed in at least 12-point boldface type at the top of the notice. This bill would authorize a homeowner or resident who is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, to notify management in writing at any time prior to the expiration of a 3-day notice demanding payment of past due rent, utilities, or reasonable incidental charges that they need additional time to make the payment due to hardship from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The bill would require management that received the above-described notice to grant the homeowner or resident one year from the expiration of the 3-day notice to make the payment, unless a different amount of time is mutually agreed upon by the homeowner or resident and the management. The bill would also require a notice for failure to pay rent, utility charges, or reasonable incidental service charges issued during the declared state of emergency or local emergency related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and during a 120-day time period after the termination thereof, to contain specified language describing these provisions, in at least 12-point boldface type at the top of the notice. Existing law authorizes the management of a mobilehome park to file a petition for an order to enjoin a continuing or recurring violation of a reasonable rule or regulation of the mobilehome park within the limited jurisdiction of the superior court of the county in which the mobilehome community is located. If a homeowner or resident who provides written notice to the management of the mobilehome park that the homeowner or resident is impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as specified, this bill would prohibit the management from seeking to enforce such an order or imposing rent increases or other charges in addition to what is included in the resident's base rent while the homeowner or resident is in compliance with the terms of a specified payment recovery plan. The bill would authorize a homeowner or resident who is prevented by management from exercising the rights provided here to bring a civil action and would authorize a court to order injunctive relief and other relief the court deems proper, as specified. The bill would require management to itemize on the homeowner's or resident's rental invoice any payments made and due under the repayment plan. The bill would also require management to apply any government funds received to offset rent, utilities, or other charges left unpaid due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic as a credit against the outstanding balances of homeowners and residents impacted by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic equally on a per person basis. The bill would also require a specified payment recovery period to be extended through the end of the 2021 calendar year if the homeowner or resident demonstrates that they have continued to suffer economic hardship due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the University of California as a public trust under the administration of the Regents of the University of California. The California Constitution grants to the regents all the powers necessary or convenient for the effective administration of this public trust. Pursuant to the California Constitution, there are 7 ex officio members of the regents and 18 appointive members appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate, a majority of the membership concurring. This measure would enact the University of California Equal Employment Opportunity Standards Act, which would, effective January 1, 2021, except as specified, require the regents to ensure that all contract workers, as defined, who are paid to perform support services for students, faculty, patients, or the general public at any campus, dining hall, medical center, clinic, research facility, laboratory, or other university location, are at all times subject to and afforded the same equal employment opportunity standards, as defined, as university employees performing similar services. The measure would authorize the regents, or any campus or other entity of the University of California, to contract for, or otherwise arrange to use, contract labor, as defined, to perform support services only under specified conditions, only if authorized to do so by statute, and only to the extent necessary to address one or more of prescribed needs. The measure would authorize the Legislature to enact statutes to further the purposes of, and to aid the enforcement of, this measure.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. The federal Medicaid program provisions prohibit payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law. Existing law requires individuals under 19 years of age enrolled in restricted-scope Medi-Cal at the time the Director of Health Care Services makes a determination that systems have been programmed for implementation of these provisions to be enrolled in the full scope of Medi-Cal benefits, if otherwise eligible, and extends eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals under 25 years of age, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status. Existing law makes the effective date of enrollment for those individuals the same day that systems are operational to begin processing new applications pursuant to the director's determination, and requires the department to maximize federal financial participation for purposes of implementing the requirements. Existing law requires that benefits for services under these provisions be provided with state-only funds only if federal financial participation is not available for those services. This bill would, subject to an appropriation by the Legislature, and effective July 1, 2020, extend eligibility for full-scope Medi-Cal benefits to individuals who are 65 years of age or older, and who are otherwise eligible for those benefits but for their immigration status. The bill would delete provisions delaying implementation until the director makes the determination described above. The bill would require the department to seek federal approvals to obtain federal financial participation to implement these requirements. Because counties are required to make Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and this bill would expand Medi-Cal eligibility, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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.
Existing law, the Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement (STAKE) Act, prohibits a person from selling or otherwise furnishing tobacco products, as defined, to a person under 21 years of age. Existing law also prohibits the use of tobacco products in county offices of education, on charter school or school district property, or near a playground or youth sports event, as specified. This bill would prohibit a tobacco retailer, or any of the tobacco retailer's agents or employees, from selling, offering for sale, or possessing with the intent to sell or offer for sale, a flavored tobacco product or a tobacco product flavor enhancer, as those terms are defined, except as specified. The bill would make a violation of this prohibition an infraction punishable by a fine of $250 for each violation. The bill would state the intent of the Legislature that these provisions do not preempt or prohibit the adoption and implementation of local ordinances that impose greater restrictions on the access to tobacco products than the restrictions imposed by the bill, as specified. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services, under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions. Existing law authorizes the department to enter contracts with managed care plans to provide Medi-Cal services. Under existing law, Medi-Cal covers early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services for individuals under 21 years of age, consistent with federal law. This bill would require any contract between the department and a Medi-Cal managed care plan to impose requirements on the Medi-Cal managed care plan to identify every enrollee who does not have a record of completing those tests at 12 and 24 months of age, and to remind the contracting health care provider who is responsible for performing a periodic health assessment of a child of the need to perform those tests. The bill would require the department to develop and implement procedures, and take enforcement action, as prescribed, to ensure that a Medi-Cal managed care plan performs those duties. If a Medi-Cal managed care plan enrollee who is a child misses a required blood lead screening test at 12 and 24 months of age, the bill would require the Medi-Cal managed care plan to notify specified individuals responsible for that child, including the parent or guardian, about those missed blood lead screening tests, and would require that notification to be included as part of an annual notification on preventive services.