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. A willful violation of the act is a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health insurer to limit annual out-of-pocket expenses for all covered benefits, as specified. This bill would require a health care service plan or health insurer to be responsible for monitoring the accrual of out-of-pocket costs toward the annual out-of-pocket limit. The bill would require a health care service plan or health insurer, for cost sharing attributed to in-network providers, including contracted vendors, that count toward the annual limit on out-of-pocket costs, to be solely responsible for monitoring the accrual of out-of-pocket costs and prohibit the health care service plan or health insurer from requiring the consumer to track or monitor the accumulation of cost sharing for covered essential health benefits attributed to in-network providers, including contracted vendors. The bill would require a health care service plan or health insurer to accept claims from the provider or information from the consumer with respect to cost sharing for out-of-network providers who are providing certain emergency services or otherwise providing covered benefits arranged by the health care service plan or health insurer subject to the annual limit on out-of-pocket expenses. The bill would also require the health care service plan or health insurer, if the cost sharing for covered essential health benefits attributable to an enrollee or insured exceeds the maximum annual out-of-pocket limits, to reimburse the enrollee or insured no later than 5 working days after the health care service plan or health insurer is required to reimburse the claim or notify the claimant that the claim is contested or denied. The bill would require that the enrollee or insured have the opportunity to review the accrual of cost sharing and provide additional information regarding cost sharing that should be accrued to the out-of-pocket limit. Because a willful violation of the bill's provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make these provisions applicable to nongrandfathered individual and group health care service plans, specialized health care service plans that provide coverage for essential health benefits, nongrandfathered individual and group health insurers, and specialized health insurers that provide coverage for essential health benefits. 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.
Sponsored bills
This measure adopts the Joint Rules of the Senate and Assembly for the 2013–14 Regular Session.
Existing law establishes the Air Quality Improvement Program that is administered by the State Air Resources Board for the purposes of funding projects related to, among other things, reduction of criteria air pollutants and improvement of air quality. Pursuant to the Air Quality Improvement Program, the state board has established the Clean Vehicle Rebate Project to promote the production and use of zero-emission vehicles and the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project to provide vouchers to help California fleets to purchase hybrid and zero-emission trucks and buses. This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to expedite groundbreaking and construction in California of a large-scale battery factory to manufacture batteries for both electric-vehicle and stationary uses. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law provides that within 60 days of a decision by the Agricultural Labor Relations Board taking effect, a party may file an action to enforce the order, using specified procedures. Existing law provides that during the pendency of any appeal of the board's order, the order may not be stayed unless the appellant demonstrates that he or she is likely to prevail on the merits and that he or she will be irreparably harmed by implementation of the board's order. This bill would provide that an action to enforce the order of the board may be filed within 60 days whether or not the other party is seeking judicial review of the order. The bill would also increase the evidentiary threshold for the court to grant a stay of the board's order and require the court to make written findings supporting any order granting a stay of the order during the pendency of the appeal.
Existing law requires that, on and after July 1, 2014, the minimum wage for all industries be not less than $9 per hour. Existing law further increases the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $10 per hour. This bill would increase the minimum wage, on and after January 1, 2015, to not less than $11 per hour, on and after January 1, 2016, to not less than $12 per hour, and on and after January 1, 2017, to not less than $13 per hour. The bill would require the automatic adjustment of the minimum wage annually thereafter, to maintain employee purchasing power diminished by the rate of inflation during the previous year. The adjustment would be calculated using the California Consumer Price Index, as specified. The bill would prohibit the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) from reducing the minimum wage and from adjusting the minimum wage if the average percentage of inflation for the previous year was negative. The bill would require the IWC to publicize the automatically adjusted minimum wage. The bill would provide that its provisions not be construed to preclude the IWC from increasing the minimum wage to an amount greater than the calculation would provide or to preclude or supersede an increase of the minimum wage that is greater than the state minimum wage by any local government or tribal government. The bill would apply to all industries, including public and private employment.
(1) The Donahoe Higher Education Act authorizes the activities of the 4 segments of the postsecondary education system in the state. These segments include the 3 public postsecondary segments: the University of California, administered by the Regents of the University of California, the California State University, administered by the Trustees of the California State University, and the California Community Colleges, administered by the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Private and independent postsecondary educational institutions constitute the other segment. Provisions of the Donahoe Higher Education Act apply to the University of California only to the extent that the regents act, by resolution, to make them applicable. This bill would establish the California Online Student Access Incentive Grant programs as 3 separate programs under the administration of the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, for each segment respectively, in consultation with their respective statewide academic senates. The bill would require the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State University, and the Chancellor of the California Community Colleges, in consultation with their respective statewide academic senates, to each develop a list of 20 high-demand lower division courses at his or her segment that are deemed necessary for program completion, deemed satisfactory for meeting general education requirements, or in areas defined as transferable lower division courses under the Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum. For these courses, the bill would require the president and chancellors, in consultation with their respective academic senates, to each provide up to 15 incentive grants to faculty and campuses to facilitate intersegmental and intrasegmental partnerships and partnerships between online course technology providers and faculty to significantly increase online options for students and high school pupils for the fall term of the 2014–15 academic year. The bill would require the online courses supported by incentive grant funds to be placed in the California Virtual Campus. The bill would require that matriculated students of campuses of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, and California high school pupils, who complete online courses supported by incentive grant funds and achieve a passing score on corresponding course examinations, be awarded full academic credit for the course at the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges, as applicable. The bill would provide that funding for the implementation of this provision would be provided in the annual Budget Act, and express the intent of the Legislature that the receipt of funding by the University of California for the implementation of this provision be contingent on its compliance with its requirements. The bill would prohibit public funds from being used to fund any private aspect of a partnership developed under the bill between faculty of the University of California, the California State University, or the California Community Colleges and an online course technology provider. This bill would provide that intellectual property developed by a segment in the implementation of the bill would be owned and managed by that segment according to its existing policies. Because this provision would require community colleges to award academic credit under these circumstances, it would constitute a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law, until January 1, 2014, establishes the California Virtual Campus to facilitate ongoing collaboration and joint efforts relating to the use of technology resources and high-speed Internet connectivity to support teaching, learning, workforce development, and research. Existing law, until January 1, 2014, authorizes the California Virtual Campus grant recipient to convene at least 4 leadership stakeholder group meetings annually comprised of representatives from the State Department of Education, the California Technology Assistance Project, and other related programs administered through the department, including adult education, local educational agencies, the California Community Colleges, the California State University, the University of California, independent colleges and universities, the California State Library, and representatives from community-based organizations to ensure the efforts affecting segments represented are appropriately meeting the needs of those segments. This bill would extend the provisions establishing the California Virtual Campus until January 1, 2017. This bill would require the representatives in the stakeholder group meetings from the California Community Colleges, the California State University, and the University of California to include, but not be limited to, faculty members from these institutions. This bill would make additional nonsubstantive changes in these provisions. By requiring faculty members from community college districts to attend these meetings, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) 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 these statutory provisions.
Existing law, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, an initiative measure enacted by the approval of Proposition 215 at the November 6, 1996, statewide general election, authorizes the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Existing law enacted by the Legislature, commonly referred to as the Medical Marijuana Program Act, requires the establishment of a program for the issuance of identification cards to qualified patients so that they may lawfully use marijuana for medical purposes, and requires the establishment of guidelines for the lawful cultivation of marijuana grown for medical use. The Medical Practice Act provides for the regulation and licensing of physicians and surgeons by the Medical Board of California and requires the board to prioritize investigations and prosecutions of physicians and surgeons representing the greatest threat of harm, as specified. Existing law identifies the cases that are to be given priority, which include cases of repeated acts of excessively prescribing, furnishing, or administering controlled substances without a good faith prior examination of the patient. Existing law makes it unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to prescribe, dispense, or furnish dangerous drugs without an appropriate prior examination and medical indication. Existing law also makes it unprofessional conduct to employ, aid, or abet an unlicensed person in the practice of medicine. Existing law generally makes any person who violates these provisions guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would enact the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Control Act and would create the Division of Medical Cannabis Regulation and Enforcement within the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, to be administered by a person exempt from civil service who is appointed by the Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The bill would grant the department the exclusive power to register persons for the cultivation, manufacture, testing, transportation, storage, distribution, and sale of medical cannabis within the state subject to specified exemptions for a city or county. The bill would provide that the director and persons employed by the department to administer and enforce its provisions are peace officers. The bill would prescribe requirements for the issuance, renewal, suspension, and revocation of mandatory commercial registrations and fees in relation to these activities. The bill would permit the department to assist statewide taxation authorities in the development of uniform policies for the taxation of mandatory commercial medical cannabis registrants and to assist in the development of regulation in connection with work safety in this industry. The bill would authorize the division to establish a grant program for the purpose of funding medical cannabis regulation and enforcement. The bill would establish the Medical Cannabis Regulation Fund and would require deposit of fees into the fund. The bill would continuously appropriate moneys within the fund to the division for the purposes of administering the program. The bill would require the deposit of penalty money into the General Fund. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2015, to issue regulations as necessary for the implementation and enforcement of mandatory commercial medical cannabis registration, as specified, and would prescribe requirements for provisional registrations to be operative January 1, 2014. The bill would prohibit approval of a mandatory commercial registration for specified reasons, including if a licensed physician making patient recommendations for medical cannabis is an interested party in the proposed operation, and would prohibit a physician from recommending medical cannabis to a patient while he or she is a mandatory commercial registrant, or associated, as specified, with a mandatory commercial registrant. The bill would provide that certain patient and caregiver information is excluded from disclosure to the public. The bill would provide that the actions of a mandatory commercial registrant or provisional registrant, its employees, and its agents that are permitted pursuant to a valid mandatory commercial registration issued by the division and that are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the act are not unlawful, as specified. The bill would provide a similar immunity for a property owner who allows his or her property to be used by a mandatory commercial registrant or provisional registrant. The bill would require the department to work in conjunction with law enforcement entities throughout the state to implement and enforce the rules and regulations regarding medical cannabis and to take appropriate action against businesses and individuals that fail to comply with the law. The bill would prohibit, on and after January 1, 2015, a person other than a mandatory commercial registrant from selling cannabis or cannabis products or performing other actions related to cannabis, except as specified. The bill would provide that its provisions do not affect local zoning ordinances or laws of general application. The bill would make certain violations of its provisions a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. The bill would establish requirements for the transportation of medical cannabis. The bill would specify that its provisions are severable. The bill would specify that recommending marijuana to patients without a good faith examination and medical reason is unprofessional conduct and is a type of case that should be given priority for investigation and prosecution by the Medical Board of California, as described above. The bill would also specify that employment by, or an agreement with, a mandatory medical cannabis registrant to provide recommendations for medical marijuana constitutes unprofessional conduct. By broadening the definition of a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal, 90 days after the department posts a specified notice on its Internet Web site, the provisions described above prohibiting prosecution of qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and designated primary caregivers who associate in California, collectively or cooperatively, to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. 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) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA also requires, in an action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with its requirements, that the grounds for noncompliance shall have been presented by any person to the public agency during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of determination. CEQA requires a person bringing an action or proceeding alleging noncompliance with its requirements to have objected to the project during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of the notice of determination. This bill would require that the alleged grounds for noncompliance shall have been presented to a public agency prior to the close of the public hearing on the project if the grounds for noncompliance were not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence during the public comment period or if no public comment period was provided by CEQA. The bill would limit the standing of a person objecting to the project prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the filing of notice of determination to an action or proceeding challenging a project for which no public comment period was provided by CEQA. (2) CEQA, until January 1, 2016, precludes an organization formed after the approval of a project from maintaining an action unless a member of the organization has objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing and presented the grounds of noncompliance to the public agency. Existing law, on and after January 1, 2016, precludes an organization formed after the approval of a project from maintaining an action unless a member of the organization has objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing. This bill would extend the preclusion in effect until January 1, 2016, indefinitely.
This measure would urge the President and United States Senate to negotiate and ratify, respectively, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement with the European Union.
Existing law generally provides for the programming and allocation of state and federal transportation capital improvement funds pursuant to the state transportation improvement program process administered by the California Transportation Commission. Existing law additionally requires the Department of Transportation to prepare a state highway operation and protection program for the expenditure of funds for major capital improvements that are necessary to preserve and protect the state highway system but that do not add a new traffic lane to the system. The state highway operation and protection program is based on a 10-year rehabilitation plan and a 5-year maintenance plan prepared by the department. Existing law provides for the program to be submitted to the commission for approval in every even-numbered year. Existing law authorizes the commission to review the program relative to its overall adequacy, level of annual funding needed to implement the program, and impact of those expenditures on the state transportation improvement program, but does not provide for the commission to allocate funds to specific projects in the state highway operation and protection program. This bill would require the commission to allocate funding for all capital and support costs for a project in the state highway operation and protection program. For a project that experiences increases in capital or support costs above the amount originally allocated, the bill would require the department to submit a supplemental project allocation request for approval by the commission. The bill would authorize the commission to establish guidelines to provide exceptions to the requirements relating to these supplemental project allocation requests that it determines may be necessary to ensure projects are not unnecessarily delayed.