Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas

Existing law establishes the Office of Health Care Affordability within the Department of Health Care Access and Information to analyze the health care market for cost trends and drivers of spending, develop data-informed policies for lowering health care costs for consumers and purchasers, and create a state strategy for controlling the cost of health care. Existing law requires the office to collect data and other information it deems necessary from health care entities to carry out the functions of the office, and requires the office to require providers and physician organizations to submit audited financial reports or comprehensive financial statements, as specified. Existing law requires those reports and statements to be kept confidential, and specifies that they are not required to be disclosed under the California Public Records Act. Existing law requires the office to obtain information about health care service plans from the Department of Managed Health Care. Existing law requires a contract between a health care service plan and a risk-bearing organization to include provisions concerning the risk-bearing organization's administrative and financial capacity. Existing law requires the director of the Department of Managed Health Care to adopt regulations regarding, among other things, periodic reports from a health care service plan that include information concerning the risk-bearing organizations and the type and amount of financial risk they have assumed. Existing law establishes, within the office, the Health Care Affordability Board, composed of 8 members, appointed as prescribed. This bill, the Medical Group Financial Transparency Act, would authorize the disclosure of audited financial reports and comprehensive financial statements of providers and physician organizations collected by the Office of Health Care Affordability and financial and other records of risk-bearing organizations made available to the Department of Managed Health Care. This bill would authorize the board, members of the board, the office, the department, and the employees, contractors, and advisors of the office and the department to use confidential audited financial reports and comprehensive financial statements only as necessary to carry out functions of the office. The bill would also require certain physician organizations, as specified, to produce or disclose audited financial reports and comprehensive financial statements to the office, subject to these provisions. The bill would require the audited financial reports and comprehensive financial statements produced or disclosed to the office to be made available to the public, by the office, as specified. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

(1) Existing law categorizes certain drugs and other substances as controlled substances and prohibits various actions related to those substances, including their manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and ingestion. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the possession, preparation, obtaining, or transportation of, specified quantities of psilocybin, psilocyn, dimethyltryptamine (DMT) , and mescaline, for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older. The bill would provide penalties for possession of these substances on school grounds, or possession by, or transferring to, persons under 21 years of age. The bill would require the California Health and Human Services Agency to convene a workgroup to study and make recommendations on the establishment of a framework governing the therapeutic use, including facilitated or supported use, of those substances. The bill would require that workgroup to send a report to the Legislature containing those recommendations on or before January 1, 2025. (2) Existing law prohibits the cultivation, transfer, or transportation, as specified, of any spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other materials that contain psilocybin or psilocyn. This bill would, on and after January 1, 2025, make lawful the cultivation or transportation of specified quantities of spores or mycelium capable of producing mushrooms or other materials that contain psilocybin or psilocyn for personal use, as defined, by and with persons 21 years of age or older. (3) Existing law prohibits the possession of drug paraphernalia, as defined. This bill would exempt from this prohibition, paraphernalia related, as specified, to these specific substances. The bill would also exempt from the prohibition items used for the testing and analysis of controlled substances. (4) Existing law states the intent of the Legislature that the messages and information provided by various state drug and alcohol programs promote no unlawful use of any drugs or alcohol. This bill would repeal those provisions. (5) By eliminating and changing the elements of existing crimes and creating new offenses, and by requiring new duties of local prosecutors, 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. (6) This bill would state that its provisions are severable.

Existing law, until December 31, 2024, requires an employer, as defined, to offer certain employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic specified information about job positions that become available for which the laid-off employees are qualified, and to offer positions to those laid-off employees based on a preference system, in accordance with specified timelines and procedures. Existing law requires an employer that declines to recall a laid-off employee on the grounds of lack of qualifications and instead hires someone other than a laid-off employee to provide the laid-off employee a written notice within 30 days including specified reasons for the decision, and other information on those hired. Existing law prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against any laid-off employee for seeking to enforce their rights under existing law. Existing law gives the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement jurisdiction over enforcement of these provisions and prescribes enforcement, remedies, and civil penalties for violations. Existing law prohibits the imposition of criminal penalties for a violation of these provisions. Existing law authorizes the division to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations, and issue determinations and interpretations concerning existing law. This bill would require a chain employer to provide each covered worker and their exclusive representative, if any, a displacement notice at least 60 days before the expected date of closure of a covered establishment. The bill would define terms for its purposes, including defining a "covered establishment" as a chain establishment that is subject to closure resulting in layoffs of workers, a "chain" as a business in this state that consists of 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand and are owned and operated by the same parent company, and a "chain employer" as any person, including a corporate officer or executive, who directly or indirectly or through an agent or any other person, owns or operates a chain and employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of workers. A "chain employer" would also include a franchisee that owns and operates 100 or more establishments nationally under an agreement with one franchisor. This bill would require a chain employer, for a year after the closure of a covered establishment, to provide to all covered workers the opportunity to transfer to a location of the chain within 25 miles of the covered establishment subject to closure as positions become available. A franchisee subject to the bill would only be required to make an offer of transfer to a covered worker to a location within 25 miles of the covered location that the franchisee owns and operates under an agreement with one franchisor. The bill would require the chain employer to maintain a preferential transfer list of covered workers. The bill would require a chain employer to make offers of transfer to qualified covered workers based on length of service, as specified. The bill would require a covered worker who is offered a position to be given at least 5 business days, from the date of receipt, to accept or decline the offer. The bill would require a chain employer to retain for a minimum of 3 years prescribed records relating to the closure and offers of employment. The bill would prohibit a chain employer from taking adverse action against a covered worker for asserting their rights under the bill. Under the bill, the division would have jurisdiction over enforcement of these provisions. The bill would prescribe enforcement, remedies, and civil penalties for violations. The bill would prohibit the imposition of criminal penalties for a violation of these provisions. The bill would authorize the division to promulgate and enforce rules and regulations, and issue determinations and interpretations concerning existing law.

Existing law requires the city council for a charter city that elects its city council using district-based elections to adopt new city council district boundaries following each federal decennial census. Existing law requires the city council to adopt the new boundaries using specified criteria, and by a specified deadline, unless the charter city has adopted different redistricting criteria or a different deadline by ordinance or in its city charter. This bill would require a charter city with a population of at least 2,500,000 people to establish an independent redistricting commission to adjust the district boundaries for the city council if the city's charter does not establish an independent redistricting commission that meets specified criteria. The bill would require the commission to adjust the boundaries of the city council districts in accordance with specified criteria and deadlines. By increasing the duties on local officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for charter cities with a population of at least 2,500,000 people. 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, upon change in control of a grocery establishment, provides for, among other things, a transition employment period for eligible grocery workers by requiring a successor grocery employer to hire from a list of eligible grocery workers provided by the incumbent grocery employer and to retain those employees for 90 days, except as specified. This bill would revise the definitions of "change in control," "grocery establishment," and "successor grocery employer," and would add a definition for "job classification" for purposes of those provisions. The bill, for a successor grocery employer that, after a change in control, will own, control, or operate 20 or more grocery establishments, would require the successor grocery employer to provide an eligible grocery employee a dislocated grocery worker allowance equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment with the incumbent grocery employer if the successor grocery employer does not hire an eligible grocery worker following a change in control or does not retain an eligible grocery worker for at least 90 days following the change in control or the eligible grocery worker's employment commencement date, except as specified. Existing law specifies that parties may, by collective bargaining agreement, provide that the collective bargaining agreement supersedes the provisions described above providing for employment protections for grocery workers. This bill would require the collective bargaining agreement to explicitly set forth the requirements that are superseded, as specified. This bill would also exempt certain incumbent grocery employers and successor grocery employers, based upon their total nationwide employment, from all of the above-described requirements.

The California Constitution provides that a proposed constitutional amendment and a statewide initiative measure each take effect only if approved by a majority of the votes cast on the amendment or measure. This measure would further provide that an initiative measure that includes one or more provisions that would amend the Constitution to increase the voter approval requirement to adopt any state or local measure would be approved by the voters only if the proportion of votes cast in favor of the initiative measure is equal to or greater than the highest voter approval requirement that the initiative measure would impose. The measure would specify that this voter approval requirement would apply to statewide initiative measures that appear on the ballot on or after January 1, 2024. The California Constitution also permits initiative and referendum powers to be exercised by the voters of each city or county under procedures provided by the Legislature. This measure would expressly authorize a local governing body to hold an advisory vote concerning any issue of governance for the purpose of allowing voters within the jurisdiction to voice their opinions on the issue. The measure would specify that an advisory question is approved only if a majority of the votes cast on the question are in favor. This measure would further declare that its provisions are severable and that if any provision is held invalid, the other provisions of the act remain valid, as specified.

Existing law generally requires the minimum wage for all industries to not be less than specified amounts to be increased until it is $15 per hour commencing January 1, 2022, for employers employing 26 or more employees, and commencing January 1, 2023, for employers employing 25 or fewer employees. Existing law makes a violation of minimum wage requirements a misdemeanor. This bill would establish 5 separate minimum wage schedules for covered health care employees, as defined, depending on the nature of the employer. This bill would require, for any covered health care facility employer, as defined, with 10,000 or more full-time equivalent employees (FTEE) , as defined, any covered health care facility employer that is a part of an integrated health care delivery system or a health care system with 10,000 or more FTEEs, a covered health care facility employer that is a dialysis clinic or is a person that owns, controls, or operates a dialysis clinic, or a covered health facility owned, affiliated, or operated by a county with a population of more than 5,000,000 as of January 1, 2023, the minimum wage for covered health care employees to be $23 per hour from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2025, inclusive, $24 per hour from June 1, 2025, to May 31, 2026, inclusive, and $25 per hour from June 1, 2026, and until as adjusted as specified. This bill would require, for any hospital that is a hospital with a high governmental payor mix, an independent hospital with an elevated governmental payor mix, a rural independent covered health care facility, or a covered health care facility that is owned, affiliated, or operated by a county with a population of less than 250,000 as of January 1, 2023, as those terms are defined, the minimum wage for covered health care employees to be $18 per hour from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2033, inclusive, and $25 per hour from June 1, 2033, and until as adjusted as specified. This bill would require, for specified clinics that meet certain requirements, the minimum wage for covered health care employees to be $21 per hour from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2026, inclusive, and $22 per hour from June 1, 2026, to May 31, 2027, inclusive, and $25 from June 1, 2027, and until as adjusted as specified. This bill would require, for all other covered health care facility employers, the minimum wage for covered health care employees to be $21 per hour from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2026, inclusive, $23 per hour from June 1, 2026, to May 31, 2028, inclusive, and $25 per hour from June 1, 2028, and until as adjusted as specified. This bill would provide that a covered health care facility that is county owned, affiliated, or operated must implement the appropriate minimum wage schedule described above, as applicable, beginning January 1, 2025. This bill would also separately require, for a licensed skilled nursing facility, as described, the minimum wage for certain other covered health care employees, as described, to be $21 per hour from June 1, 2024, to May 31, 2026, inclusive, $23 per hour from June 1, 2026, to May 31, 2028, inclusive, and $25 per hour from June 1, 2028, and until as adjusted as specified. The bill would make this minimum wage requirement effective only when a patient care minimum spending requirement applicable to skilled nursing facilities is in effect. This bill would provide that the health care worker minimum wages constitute the state minimum wage for covered health care employment for all purposes under the Labor Code and the Wage Orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The bill would provide that a health care worker minimum wage is enforceable by the Labor Commissioner or by a covered worker through a civil action, through the same means and with the same relief available for violation of any other state minimum wage requirement. By establishing new minimum wages, the violation of which would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would require, for covered health care employment where the employee is paid on a salary basis, that the employee earn a monthly salary equivalent to no less than 150% of the health care worker minimum wage or 200% of the applicable minimum wage, whichever is greater, for full-time employment in order to qualify as exempt from the payment of minimum wage and overtime. This bill would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information to publish, on or before January 31, 2024, and on the department's internet website, specified information, including a list of hospitals that qualify under certain classifications. The bill would provide, until January 31, 2025, a process for hospitals excluded from that list to request classification. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2025, the adoption of any necessary rules and regulations for purposes of implementing certain provisions of the bill as emergency regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act and would deem the adoption of those emergency regulations an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare. The bill would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information to consider input from specified stakeholders when adopting those rules and regulations, as specified. This bill would, by March 1, 2024, require the Department of Industrial Relations, in collaboration with the State Department of Health Care Services and the Department of Health Care Access and Information, to develop a waiver program that would allow a covered health care facility, as defined, to apply for and receive a temporary pause or alternative phase in schedule of the minimum wage requirements described above. In order to obtain a waiver, the bill would require a covered health care facility to demonstrate that compliance with the minimum wage requirements would raise doubts about the covered health care facility's ability to continue as a going concern under generally accepted accounting principles, as specified. The bill would provide that issuance of the terms of the pause or alternative phase in schedule is solely and exclusively within the authority of the Department of Industrial Relations, and the authority regarding whether the covered health care facility demonstrates the inability to continue as a going concern pursuant is solely and exclusively within the authority of the State Department of Health Care Services. This bill would prohibit any ordinance, regulations, or administrative action that is applicable to a covered health care facility and that establishes, requires, imposes, limits, or otherwise relates to wages or compensation for covered health care facility employees from being enacted or enforced in or by any city, county, or city and county, except as provided. This bill would also make its provisions severable. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for health care workers. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. 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 prohibits a person from discharging an employee or in any manner discriminating, retaliating, or taking any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in protected conduct, as specified. Under existing law, an employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against, subjected to adverse action, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment because, among other things, the employee engaged in protected conduct, as specified, the employee shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by those acts of the employer. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee's claim if an employer engages in any action prohibited by this provision within 90 days of the protected activity specified in this provision. (2) Existing law prohibits employers and their agents from making, adopting, or enforcing a rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to certain entities or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a law, as specified. Existing law also prohibits retaliation against an employee for various reasons. Under existing law, in addition to other penalties, an employer that is a corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation of this provision. This bill would instead establish that in addition to other remedies, an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation of this provision, to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner, in assessing this penalty, to consider the nature and seriousness of the violation based on the evidence obtained during the course of the investigation, as prescribed. (3) Existing law prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates less than the rates paid to an employee of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except upon a specified demonstration by the employer. Existing law prohibits an employer from prohibiting an employee from disclosing the employee's own wages, discussing the wages of others, inquiring about another employee's wages, or aiding or encouraging any other employee to exercise these and other rights. Existing law prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of an action taken by the employee to invoke these and other provisions. Existing law requires a civil action brought in this regard to be commenced within no later than one year, as specified. This bill would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee's claim if an employer engages in any action prohibited by this provision within 90 days of the protected activity specified in this provision.

Existing law requires local educational agencies to identify, locate, and assess individuals with exceptional needs and to provide those pupils with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, with special education and related services as reflected in an individualized education program. Existing law provides that school districts and county offices of education are responsible for the overall development of a comprehensive school safety plan for each of its schools operating a kindergarten or any of grades 1 to 12, inclusive. Existing law requires the schoolsite council or school safety planning committee, before adopting the plan, to hold a public meeting at the schoolsite in order to allow members of the public the opportunity to express an opinion about the plan. Existing law requires the plan to include specified components, including, among other components, disaster procedures, routine and emergency, including adaptations for pupils with disabilities in accordance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Existing law requires a petition to establish a charter school to include, among other things, a reasonably comprehensive description of the procedures that the charter school will follow to ensure the health and safety of pupils and staff, including requiring the development and annual update of a school safety plan that includes specified comprehensive school safety plan topics and procedures, including the disaster procedures. This bill would require those disaster procedures to also include adaptations for pupils with disabilities in accordance with the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and would require the annual evaluation of the comprehensive school safety plan and the annual review of a charter school's school safety plan to also include ensuring that the plan includes appropriate adaptations for pupils with disabilities, as specified. The bill would expressly authorize a school employee, a pupil's parent, guardian, or educational rights holder, or a pupil, after the first evaluation or review for those purposes is conducted, to bring concerns about an individual pupil's ability to access disaster safety procedures described in the comprehensive school safety plan or the school safety plan to the school principal, and would require the school principal, if they determine there is merit to a concern, to direct the schoolsite council, school safety planning committee, or charter school, as applicable, to appropriately modify the comprehensive school safety plan or school safety plan, as applicable, as specified. The bill would also expressly provide that its provisions do not prohibit a school employee, a pupil's parent, guardian, or educational rights holder, or a pupil themselves from bringing their concerns to the school principal before an evaluation or review for those purposes. By imposing additional requirements on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 32282 of the Education Code proposed by SB 10 and SB 671 to be operative only if this bill and either or both of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, 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 Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47, as approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election, reduced the penalties for various crimes. Under the provisions of the act, a person who, on November 5, 2014, was serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony or felonies who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the act if the act had been in effect at the time of the conviction may petition or apply to have the sentence reduced in accordance with the act. Existing law requires those petitions to be filed on or before November 4, 2022, or at a later date upon showing of good cause. Proposition 47 authorizes its provisions to be amended by a statute that is consistent with and furthers its intent and that is passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature. This bill would amend Proposition 47 to remove that deadline and the showing of good cause requirement. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.