Existing federal law, the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) , requires each state to establish an American Health Benefit Exchange to facilitate the purchase of qualified health benefit plans by qualified individuals and qualified small employers. PPACA defines a "qualified health plan" as a plan that, among other requirements, provides an essential health benefits package. Existing state law creates the California Health Benefit Exchange, also known as Covered California, to facilitate the enrollment of qualified individuals and qualified small employers in qualified health plans as required under PPACA. 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. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. 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. This bill, the California Guaranteed Health Care for All Act, would create the California Guaranteed Health Care for All program, or CalCare, to provide comprehensive universal single-payer health care coverage and a health care cost control system for the benefit of all residents of the state. The bill, among other things, would provide that CalCare cover a wide range of medical benefits and other services and would incorporate the health care benefits and standards of other existing federal and state provisions, including the federal Children's Health Insurance Program, Medi-Cal, ancillary health care or social services covered by regional centers for persons with developmental disabilities, Knox-Keene, and the federal Medicare program. The bill would require the board to seek all necessary waivers, approvals, and agreements to allow various existing federal health care payments to be paid to CalCare, which would then assume responsibility for all benefits and services previously paid for with those funds. This bill would create the CalCare Board to govern CalCare, made up of 9 voting members with demonstrated and acknowledged expertise in health care, and appointed as provided, plus the Secretary of California Health and Human Services or their designee as a nonvoting, ex officio member. The bill would provide the board with all the powers and duties necessary to establish CalCare, including determining when individuals may start enrolling into CalCare, employing necessary staff, negotiating pricing for covered pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, establishing a prescription drug formulary, and negotiating and entering into necessary contracts. The bill would require the board, on or before July 1, 2024, to conduct and deliver a fiscal analysis to determine whether or not CalCare may be implemented and whether revenue is more likely than not to pay for program costs, as specified. The bill would require the board to convene a CalCare Public Advisory Committee with specified members to advise the board on all matters of policy for CalCare. The bill would establish an 11-member Advisory Commission on Long-Term Services and Supports to advise the board on matters of policy related to long-term services and supports. This bill would provide for the participation of health care providers in CalCare, including the requirements of a participation agreement between a health care provider and the board, provide for payment for health care items and services, and specify program participation standards. The bill would prohibit a participating provider from discriminating against a person by, among other things, reducing or denying a person's benefits under CalCare because of a specified characteristic, status, or condition of the person. This bill would prohibit a participating provider from billing or entering into a private contract with an individual eligible for CalCare benefits regarding a covered benefit, but would authorize contracting for a health care item or service that is not a covered benefit if specified criteria are met. The bill would authorize health care providers to collectively negotiate fee-for-service rates of payment for health care items and services using a 3rd-party representative, as provided. The bill would require the board to annually determine an institutional provider's global budget, to be used to cover operating expenses related to covered health care items and services for that fiscal year, and would authorize payments under the global budget. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would develop a revenue plan, taking into consideration anticipated federal revenue available for CalCare. The bill would create the CalCare Trust Fund in the State Treasury, as a continuously appropriated fund, consisting of any federal and state moneys received for the purposes of the act. Because the bill would create a continuously appropriated fund, it would make an appropriation. This bill would prohibit specified provisions of this act from becoming operative until the Secretary of California Health and Human Services gives written notice to the Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Clerk of the Assembly that the CalCare Trust Fund has the revenues to fund the costs of implementing the act, the people of California have approved the necessary revenue mechanisms, and the Legislature has approved implementation of the CalCare by statute. The California Health and Human Services Agency would be required to publish a copy of the notice on its internet website. 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.
Sponsored bills
Existing law requires the governing board of any school district to give diligent care to the health and physical development of pupils and authorizes the governing board of a school district to employ properly certified persons for the work, including school psychologists and counselors. This bill would require the State Department of Education, upon appropriation by the Legislature, to provide up to $500,000,000 in grants each year for the purpose of providing mental health services for all pupils, including those affected by school closures and distance learning requirements resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The bill would require the department to allocate those grants to local educational agencies, as specified. The bill would be implemented only to the extent that funds for its purposes are appropriated by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act, and would authorize that appropriation to come from any available state and federal funds.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each city, county, and city and county to prepare and adopt a general plan that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would address the need to build more affordable housing units.
(1) Existing law prohibits health care service plans and their contracting entities from including provisions in their contracts that interfere with the ability of a physician and surgeon or other licensed health care provider to communicate with a patient regarding their health care. This bill would prohibit a health facility from requiring a physician or surgeon, as a condition of obtaining or maintaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with criteria, rules, regulations, or other policies or procedures that are not knowingly and explicitly ratified, issued, or promulgated by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or restrict the ability of the physician or surgeon to provide a particular medical treatment or service that falls within the scope of their privileges, or from requiring a physician or surgeon to obtain permission from a nonphysician or nonsurgeon to perform a particular medical treatment or service for which consent has been obtained from the patient or the patient's representative, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a health facility from limiting or otherwise exercising control over the independent professional judgment of a physician or surgeon concerning the practice of medicine or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, if the physician or surgeon, exercising their independent professional judgment, determines that a particular medical service or treatment is medically appropriate, unless specified circumstances apply. This bill would authorize a superior court, upon application by a health facility's medical staff or an individual member of a facility's medical staff, to issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining any acts or practices that could constitute a violation of these provisions. The bill would specify that its provisions cannot be construed to prohibit a health facility from establishing criteria, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures that are required by federal or state law or regulation as a condition of licensure, receipt of federal or state funds, or participation in Medicare, Medi-Cal, or other federal or state health care programs, or limit a medical staff's authority to take corrective action against medical staff members in accordance with the medical staff bylaws, except in specified circumstances. The bill would also prohibit health facility corporate bylaws, policies, rules, contracts, or other institutional requirements that conflict with these provisions from being applied to directly or indirectly affect a physician's clinical privileges or rights, or privileges of membership on the medical staff, except as required by federal or state law. (2) Existing law requires each shareholder, director, and officer of a medical or podiatry corporation, except as provided, to be a licensed person, as defined. This bill would require the shareholders, directors, and officers of a medical corporation to manage and have ultimate control, as defined, over the assets and business operations of the medical corporation and not be replaced, removed, or otherwise controlled by any lay entity or individual, as specified. (3) Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health facility or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care, as specified, to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to a for-profit corporation or entity or to a mutual benefit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to any for-profit corporation or entity or to any mutual benefit corporation or entity, as specified. Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health care facility, or that or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to another nonprofit corporation or entity. Existing law gives the Attorney General discretion to consent to, give conditional consent to, or not to consent to these agreements or transactions considering any factor they determine to be relevant. This bill would include among those factors that, if applicable, may be relevant to the Attorney General in determining whether to consent whether the agreement or transaction may create a reduction of or limitation on the availability of the full range of health care services to any group of individuals based on any characteristic listed or defined in the Unruh Civil Rights Act. The bill would also include among those factors whether the agreement or transaction may result in undue interference in patients' access to medical care due to improper or unlawful motives. (4) This bill would state that its provisions are severable.
(1) Existing law prohibits health care service plans and their contracting entities from including provisions in their contracts that interfere with the ability of a physician and surgeon or other licensed health care provider to communicate with a patient regarding their health care. This bill would prohibit a health facility from requiring a physician or surgeon, as a condition of obtaining or maintaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with criteria, rules, regulations, or other policies or procedures that are not knowingly and explicitly ratified, issued, or promulgated by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly prohibit, limit, or restrict the ability of the physician or surgeon to provide a particular medical treatment or service that falls within the scope of their privileges, or from requiring a physician or surgeon to obtain permission from a nonphysician or nonsurgeon to perform a particular medical treatment or service for which consent has been obtained from the patient or the patient's representative, except as provided. The bill would prohibit a health facility from limiting or otherwise exercising control over the independent professional judgment of a physician or surgeon concerning the practice of medicine or the diagnosis or treatment of disease, if the physician or surgeon, exercising their independent professional judgment, determines that a particular medical service or treatment is medically appropriate, unless specified circumstances apply. This bill would authorize a superior court, upon application by a health facility's medical staff or an individual member of a facility's medical staff, to issue an injunction or other appropriate order restraining any acts or practices that could constitute a violation of these provisions. The bill would specify that its provisions cannot be construed to prohibit a health facility from establishing criteria, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures that are required by federal or state law or regulation as a condition of licensure, receipt of federal or state funds, or participation in Medicare, Medi-Cal, or other federal or state health care programs, or limit a medical staff's authority to take corrective action against medical staff members in accordance with the medical staff bylaws, except in specified circumstances. The bill would also prohibit health facility corporate bylaws, policies, rules, contracts, or other institutional requirements that conflict with these provisions from being applied to directly or indirectly affect a physician's clinical privileges or rights, or privileges of membership on the medical staff, except as required by federal or state law. (2) Existing law requires each shareholder, director, and officer of a medical or podiatry corporation, except as provided, to be a licensed person, as defined. This bill would require the shareholders, directors, and officers of a medical corporation to manage and have ultimate control, as defined, over the assets and business operations of the medical corporation and not be replaced, removed, or otherwise controlled by any lay entity or individual, as specified. (3) Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health facility or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care, as specified, to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to a for-profit corporation or entity or to a mutual benefit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to any for-profit corporation or entity or to any mutual benefit corporation or entity, as specified. Existing law requires any nonprofit corporation that operates or controls a health care facility, or that or operates or controls a facility that provides similar health care to provide written notice to, and to obtain the written consent of, the Attorney General prior to entering into any agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity when a material amount of the assets of the nonprofit corporation are involved in the agreement or transaction, or to transfer control, responsibility, or governance of a material amount of the assets or operations of the nonprofit corporation to another nonprofit corporation or entity. Existing law gives the Attorney General discretion to consent to, give conditional consent to, or not to consent to these agreements or transactions considering any factor they determine to be relevant. This bill would include among those factors that, if applicable, may be relevant to the Attorney General in determining whether to consent whether the agreement or transaction may create a reduction of or limitation on the availability of the full range of health care services to any group of individuals based on their membership in a protected class. The bill would, in the case of an agreement or transaction to sell, transfer, lease, or exchange its assets to another nonprofit corporation or entity, also include among those factors whether the agreement or transaction may result in undue interference in patients' access to medical care due to improper or unlawful motives. (4) This bill would state that its provisions are severable.
(1) The Baldwin Hills Conservancy Act establishes, until January 1, 2026, in the Natural Resources Agency, the Baldwin Hills Conservancy, created with the purpose, among other purposes, to acquire and manage public lands within the Baldwin Hills area, as defined. This bill would expand the area covered by the conservancy to include the southern Ballona Creek Watershed, as defined, and the Upper Dominguez Channel, as defined. The bill would rename the conservancy the Baldwin Hills and Urban Watersheds Conservancy and make conforming changes. The bill would repeal the January 1, 2026, sunset date, thereby extending the act indefinitely. (2) The act requires the conservancy's governing board to consist of 13 voting members, including one member from the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors within whose district the majority of the Baldwin Hills area is located. The act requires 6 of these members to be appointed by the Governor with 4 out of that 6 to be residents of specified areas. This bill would delete the above provisions relating to those members and expand the voting membership of the conservancy's board to consist of 15 voting members by including the mayors of the Cities of Los Angeles and Culver City, an appointee from the South Bay Cities Council of Governments, and a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors representing District 2. The bill would require the Governor to appoint 5 of the voting members, who are nominated by a city council or a neighborhood empowerment group, as provided. The act requires the conservancy's board to also consist of 7 nonvoting members. This bill would expand the nonvoting membership of the conservancy's board to consist of 12 nonvoting members by including the Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, among others, as provided. (3) The act requires the conservancy to do certain things, including develop and coordinate an integrated program of resource stewardship so that the entire area is managed for optimum recreational and natural resource values, as provided. This bill would also require the entire area to be managed for optimum climate resilience. The act also requires the conservancy, as part of its duties, to approve conservancy funded projects, enter into a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Parks and Recreation, and approve specified master plans, among other things, as provided. This bill would delete these duties and would instead require the conservancy to carry out projects and activities to further the purposes of the act, study the potential environmental and recreational uses of the Baldwin Hills, southern Ballona Creek Watershed, and Upper Dominguez Channel area, and develop and adopt a proposed watershed and open-space plan for improvements in the conservancy territory, as provided. The bill would require a report on this plan to be provided to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023. (4) The act requires the conservancy to administer any funds appropriated to it and any revenue generated by public agencies for the Baldwin Hills area and contributed to the conservancy, and authorizes the conservancy to expend those funds for capital improvements, land acquisition, or support of the conservancy's operations. This bill would require the conservancy to additionally administer any funds appropriated to it for these purposes from any future bond act or local initiative measure, as provided. (5) In addition, this bill would establish the Baldwin Hills, Southern Ballona Creek Watershed, and Upper Dominguez Channel Urban Watershed Improvement Program, to be administered by the conservancy, for climate change adaptation improvements, to protect, conserve, and restore the health and resilience of the watersheds and communities of the region, as provided.
Existing law, on and after January 1, 2023, prohibits California postsecondary educational institutions from upholding any rule, requirement, standard or other limitation that prevents an intercollegiate student athlete from earning compensation as a result of the use of the student's name, image, or likeness. Existing law prohibits a postsecondary educational institution, athletic association, conference or other group or organization with authority over intercollegiate athletics from providing a prospective student athlete with compensation in relation to the athlete's name, image, or likeness. This bill would require institutions of higher education with sports in which 50% of the institution's total sports revenue in the state exceeds the total aggregate grant-in-aid athletics scholarship amount provided to the institution's college athletes in the sport during the reporting year to pay a name, image, and likeness royalty fee to each qualifying college athlete, as specified. The bill would require each institution of higher education to comply with Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972 as it applies to college athletics, to suspend an athletic director from intercollegiate athletics responsibilities in the state for three years if Title IX compliance is not achieved on or before January 1, 2025, and maintained for at least 6 months in each 12-month period after January 1, 2025, and to preserve each athletic program's college athletes' educational opportunities and grant-in-aid athletic scholarship amounts, including by requiring program cost-cutting options be implemented before, or simultaneously with, any reduction in college athletes' aggregate unduplicated participation numbers or grant-in-aid athletic scholarship amounts. To the extent the bill would impose additional obligations on community college districts, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would prohibit an institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status from compensating athletics administrative personnel in an amount that exceeds 50% of the average total intercollegiate athletics administrative personnel compensation expenses paid by institutions of higher education that belong to the Football Championship Subdivision of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. The bill also would prohibit until after January 1, 2032, an institution of higher education that receives state funds or state tax-exempt status from entering into a contract for new facility expenditures related to intercollegiate athletics unless the expenditure is necessary for matters of health and safety, would result in a net benefit to the environment, or is necessary to ensure compliance with Title IX of the federal Education Amendments of 1972. 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 establishes the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHSA) , which includes departments charged with the administration of health, social, and other human services. Existing law requires CHHSA to enter into partnerships to increase patient access to affordable drugs and to produce or distribute generic prescription drugs and at least one form of insulin, as specified. This bill would create the Affordable Prescription Drug Importation Program in CHHSA, under which the state would be a licensed wholesaler that imports prescription drugs, as specified, for the exclusive purpose of dispensing those drugs to program participants. The bill would require CHHSA to seek federal approval for the importation program on or before June 1, 2022, and would require CHHSA to contract with at least one contracted importer to provide services under the importation program within 6 months of receiving federal approval. The bill would require a contracted importer to, among other things, establish a wholesale prescription drug importation list that identifies the prescription drugs that have the highest potential for cost savings to the state and identify and contract with eligible Canadian suppliers who have agreed to export prescription drugs on that list. This bill would authorize a contracted importer to import a prescription drug from a Canadian supplier if specified requirements are met. The bill would authorize CHHSA to expand the importation program to authorize a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or pharmacy in a foreign country other than Canada to export prescription drugs to California if specified requirements are met, including a change in federal law. If the importation program is expanded, the bill would authorize a contracted importer to import prescription drugs from a manufacturer, wholesale distributor, or pharmacy in a foreign country other than Canada.
Existing law provides for officers and employees of the state to receive travel expenses when away from their headquarters for state business. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would prohibit state-sponsored travel to any state that enacts any law that limits or reduces access to voting.
Existing law generally regulates classes of insurance, including pet insurance. Under existing law, pet insurance is an individual or group insurance policy that provides coverage for veterinary expenses, which are defined as the costs associated with medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment provided by a veterinarian. This bill would expand the definition of veterinary expenses to include costs associated with medical advice, diagnosis, care, or treatment provided by a person working under the direction of a veterinarian. The bill would require a pet insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2022, to provide full coverage for a sterilization surgery and the veterinary expenses associated with, or arising from, the sterilization surgery, and would prohibit an insurer from accepting or requiring an additional payment for sterilization surgery. The bill would require a notice of cancellation for a pet insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2022, to be delivered at least 20 calendar days before the effective date of the cancellation, or at least 10 calendar days before the effective date in cases of nonpayment of premiums or fraud.