| |
|
|
Support
|
|
|
|
AB 280
|
(Aguiar-Curry D) Health care coverage: provider directories.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/30/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/30/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/9/2025-VOTE: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] (PASS)
|
|
|
Location: 7/9/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan and a health insurer that contracts with providers for alternative rates of payment to publish and maintain a provider directory or directories with information on contracting providers that deliver health care services enrollees or insureds, and requires a health care service plan and health insurer to regularly update its printed and online provider directory or directories, as specified. Existing law authorizes the departments to require a plan or insurer to provide coverage for all covered health care services provided to an enrollee or insured who reasonably relied on materially inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information contained in a plan’s or insurer’s provider directory or directories. This bill would require a plan or insurer to annually verify and delete inaccurate listings from its provider directories, and would require a provider directory to be 60% accurate on July 1, 2026, with increasing required percentage accuracy benchmarks to be met each year until the directories are 95% accurate on or before July 1, 2029. The bill would subject a plan or insurer to administrative penalties for failure to meet the prescribed benchmarks. The bill would require a plan or insurer to provide coverage for all covered health care services provided to an enrollee or insured who reasonably relied on inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading information contained in a health plan or policy’s provider directory or directories and to reimburse the provider the out-of-network amount for those services. The bill would prohibit a provider from collecting an additional amount from an enrollee or insured other than the applicable in-network cost sharing, which would count toward the in-network deductible and out-of-pocket maximum. The bill would require a plan or insurer to provide information about in-network providers to enrollees and insureds upon request, and would limit the cost-sharing amounts an enrollee or insured is required to pay for services from those providers under specified circumstances. The bill would require the health care service plan or the insurer, as applicable, to ensure the accuracy of a request to add back a provider who was previously removed from a directory and approve the request within 10 business days of receipt, if accurate. Because a violation of the bill’s requirements by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 4/23/25
Support letter sent to Asm. APPR -- 4/29/25
Support letter sent to Sen. Health -- 06/27/25
|
|
|
|
AB 371
|
(Haney D) Dental coverage.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/3/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/14/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act’s requirements a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law prohibits a contract between a plan or insurer and a dentist from requiring a dentist to accept an amount set by the plan or insurer as payment for dental care services provided to an enrollee or insured that are not covered services under the enrollee’s contract or the insured’s policy. Existing law requires a plan or insurer to make specified disclosures to an enrollee or insured regarding noncovered dental services. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health insurer to comply with specified timely access requirements. For a specified plan or insurer offering coverage for dental services, existing law requires urgent dental appointments to be offered within 72 hours of a request, nonurgent dental appointments to be offered within 36 business days of a request, and preventive dental care appointments to be offered within 40 business days of a request, as specified. Existing law requires a contract between a health care service plan and health care provider to ensure compliance with network adequacy standards and to require reporting by providers to plans to ensure compliance. Under existing law, a health care service plan is required to annually report to the Department of Managed Health Care on this compliance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Insurance to issue guidance to insurers regarding annual timely access and network reporting methodologies. If a health care service plan or health insurer pays a contracting dental provider directly for covered services, this bill would require the plan or insurer to pay a noncontracting dental provider directly for covered services if the noncontracting provider submits to the plan or insurer a written assignment of benefits form signed by the enrollee or insured. The bill would require the plan or insurer to provide a predetermination or prior authorization to the dental provider and to reimburse the provider for not less than that amount, except as specified. The bill would require the plan or insurer to notify the enrollee or insured that the provider was paid and that the out-of-network cost may count towards their annual or lifetime maximum. The bill would require a noncontracting dental provider to make specified disclosures to an enrollee or insured before accepting an assignment of benefits. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 4/28/25
Support letter sent to Asm. APPR -- 5/8/25
|
|
|
|
ACA 2
|
(Jackson D) Legislature: retirement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 12/2/2024 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/2/2024
|
|
|
Status: 12/3/2024-From printer. May be heard in committee January 2.
|
|
|
Location: 12/2/2024-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: The California Constitution prohibits Members of the Legislature from accruing any pension or retirement benefit other than participation in the federal Social Security program as a result of legislative service. This measure, the Legislative Diversification Act, would repeal that prohibition and instead require the Legislature to establish a retirement system for Members elected to or serving in the Legislature on or after November 1, 2010. The measure would require a Member to serve at least 10 years in the Legislature to be eligible to receive benefits under the retirement system. The measure would authorize a Member who serves fewer than 10 years to transfer the service credit earned as a result of service in the Legislature to any other public employees’ pension or retirement system in which the Member participates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 351
|
(Cabaldon D) Health facilities.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/16/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/12/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/16/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/2/2025-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 1). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/1/2025-A. APPR.
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/16/2025 9 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 1100 ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS, WICKS, BUFFY, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law generally regulates the licensing and operation of health facilities and other facilities providing health care in this state. Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, creates the Medical Board of California to license and regulate physicians and surgeons. Under existing law, the Dental Practice Act, the Dental Board of California licenses and regulates dentists. Existing law, the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, generally requires a nonprofit public benefit corporation to give written notice to the Attorney General before it sells, leases, conveys, exchanges, transfers, or disposes of its assets, except as specified. Existing law provides specific procedures for health facilities and additionally requires these facilities to obtain the consent of the Attorney General prior to entering into a specified agreement or transaction. This bill would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund, as defined, involved in any manner with a physician or dental practice doing business in this state from interfering with the professional judgment of physicians or dentists in making health care decisions and exercising power over specified actions, including, among other things, making decisions regarding coding and billing procedures for patient care services. The bill would prohibit a private equity group or hedge fund from entering into an agreement or arrangement with a physician or dental practice if the agreement or arrangement would enable the person or entity to engage in the prohibited actions described above. The bill would render void and unenforceable specified types of contracts between a physician or dental practice and a private equity group or hedge fund that explicitly or implicitly include any clause barring any provider in that practice from competing with that practice in the event of a termination or resignation, or from disparaging, opining, or commenting on that practice in any manner as to any issues involving quality of care, utilization of care, ethical or professional challenges in the practice of medicine or dentistry, or revenue-increasing strategies employed by the private equity group or hedge fund, as specified. This bill would entitle the Attorney General to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees and costs for the enforcement of these provisions, as specified. The bill would make its provisions severable.
|
|
|
|
|
Memo:
|
|
|
Support letter sent to Author -- 4/28/25
Support letter sent to Sen. APPR -- 05-26-25
Support letter sent to Asm. B&P -- 06-13-25
Support letter sent to Asm. JUD -- 06-27-25
Support letter sent to Asm. APPR -- 07-10-25
|
|
Watch
|
|
|
|
AB 24
|
(DeMaio R) San Diego Association of Governments: board of directors.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/8/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/2/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/8/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was L. GOV. on 3/24/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The San Diego Regional Transportation Consolidation Act reorganizes the transportation responsibilities in the San Diego region by consolidating the San Diego Association of Governments and the transit operations of 2 specified transit boards. Existing law establishes a 21-member board of directors to govern the consolidated agency that includes, among others, 2 members of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County. This bill, the Give San Diego Rural Communities a Voice Act, would instead require the board of directors to include, among others, one member of the Board of Supervisors of San Diego County from an unincorporated area of the county and one representative from the Association of Planning Groups - San Diego County to be selected by their respective governing bodies. To the extent the bill would impose additional duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 101
|
(Gabriel D) Budget Act of 2025.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/9/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/8/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/9/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/17/2025-Re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
|
|
|
Location: 6/17/2025-S. BUDGET & F.R.
|
|
|
Summary: This bill would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2025-26 fiscal year. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 102
|
(Gabriel D) Budget Act of 2025.
|
|
|
Current Text: Chaptered: 6/27/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/8/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/27/2025-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 5, Statutes of 2025
|
|
|
Location: 6/27/2025-A. CHAPTERED
|
|
|
Summary: The Budget Act of 2025 would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2025 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 139
|
(Committee on Budget) State Bargaining Unit 9 and State Bargaining Unit 12.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/25/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/8/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/25/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/2/2025-Re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
|
|
|
Location: 7/2/2025-S. BUDGET & F.R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to provide a memorandum of understanding to the Legislative Analyst, who then has 10 calendar days from the date the tentative agreement is received to issue a fiscal analysis to the Legislature. Existing law prohibits the memorandum of understanding from being subject to legislative determination until either the Legislative Analyst has presented a fiscal analysis of the memorandum of understanding or until 10 calendar days have elapsed since the memorandum was received by the Legislative Analyst. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described statutory provisions, would approve provisions of the agreement entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 9 and State Bargaining Unit 12. The bill would provide that the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for these provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would authorize the state employer or State Bargaining Unit 9 or State Bargaining Unit 12 to reopen negotiations if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would require the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds to become effective even if the provisions are approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act.This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 140
|
(Committee on Budget) State Bargaining Unit 6.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/8/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/2/2025-Re-referred to Com. on B. & F. R.
|
|
|
Location: 7/2/2025-S. BUDGET & F.R.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to provide a memorandum of understanding to the Legislative Analyst, who then has 10 calendar days from the date the tentative agreement is received to issue a fiscal analysis to the Legislature. Existing law prohibits the memorandum of understanding from being subject to legislative determination until either the Legislative Analyst has presented a fiscal analysis of the memorandum of understanding or until 10 calendar days have elapsed since the memorandum was received by the Legislative Analyst. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described statutory provisions, would approve provisions of the agreement entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6. The bill would provide that the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for these provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would authorize the state employer or State Bargaining Unit 6 to reopen negotiations if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would require the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds to become effective even if the provisions approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act. By approving provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds, this bill would make an appropriation. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 224
|
(Bonta D) Health care coverage: essential health benefits.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/8/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/9/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/8/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/8/2025-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 6/11/2025-S. HEALTH
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/16/2025 1:30 p.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 1200 SENATE HEALTH, MENJIVAR, CAROLINE, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Insurance to regulate health insurers. Existing law requires an individual or small group health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2017, to include, at a minimum, coverage for essential health benefits pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Existing law requires a health insurance policy to cover the same health benefits that the benchmark plan, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO 30 plan, offered during the first quarter of 2014, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to review California’s essential health benefits benchmark plan and establish a new benchmark plan for the 2027 plan year for health insurers. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2027, if the United States Department of Health and Human Services approves a new essential health benefits benchmark plan for the state, as specified, the benchmark plan for health insurers to include certain additional benefits, including coverage for specified fertility services and specified durable medical equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 268
|
(Kalra D) State holidays: Diwali.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/13/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/17/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/13/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/9/2025-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (July 9). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/9/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Calendar: 8/18/2025 10 a.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 2200 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, CABALLERO, ANNA, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law designates specific days as holidays in this state. Existing law designates holidays on which community colleges and public schools are authorized to close pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the governing board and represented employees, including “Native American Day” on the 4th Friday in September. Existing law entitles state employees, with specified exceptions, to be given time off with pay for specified holidays. This bill would add “Diwali” to the list of state holidays. The bill would authorize community colleges and public schools to close on “Diwali,” as specified. The bill would authorize state employees to elect to take time off with pay in recognition of “Diwali,” as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 339
|
(Ortega D) Local public employee organizations: notice requirements.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/18/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/28/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/18/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/9/2025-VOTE: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] (PASS)
|
|
|
Location: 7/9/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, contains various provisions that govern collective bargaining of local represented employees and delegates jurisdiction to the Public Employment Relations Board to resolve disputes and enforce the statutory duties and rights of local public agency employers and employees. Existing law requires the governing body of a public agency to meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations. Existing law requires the governing body of a public agency, and boards and commissions designated by law or by the governing body, to give reasonable written notice, except in cases of emergency, as specified, to each recognized employee organization affected of any ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation directly relating to matters within the scope of representation proposed to be adopted by the governing body or the designated boards and commissions. This bill would require the governing body of a public agency, and boards and commissions designated by law or by the governing body of a public agency, to give the recognized employee organization no less than 60 days’ written notice before issuing a request for proposals, request for quotes, or renewing or extending an existing contract to perform services that are within the scope of work of the job classifications represented by the recognized employee organization. The bill would require the notice to include specified information, including the anticipated duration of the contract. The bill would also require the public agency, if an emergency or other exigent circumstance prevents the public agency from providing the written notice described above, to provide as much advance notice as is practicable under the circumstances. If the recognized employee organization demands to meet and confer after receiving the written notice, the bill would require the public agency and recognized employee organization to meet and confer in good faith within a reasonable time, as specified. By imposing new duties on local public agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 340
|
(Ahrens D) Employer-employee relations: confidential communications.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/5/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/28/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/5/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/25/2025-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
|
|
|
Location: 6/25/2025-S. JUD.
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/15/2025 9:30 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 112 SENATE JUDICIARY, UMBERG, THOMAS, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law that governs the labor relations of public employees and employers, including, among others, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the Ralph C. Dills Act, provisions relating to public schools, and provisions relating to higher education, prohibits employers from taking certain actions relating to employee organization, including imposing or threatening to impose reprisals on employees, discriminating or threatening to discriminate against employees, or otherwise interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees because of their exercise of their guaranteed rights. Those provisions of existing law further prohibit denying to employee organizations the rights guaranteed to them by existing law. This bill would prohibit a public employer from questioning a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative regarding communications made in confidence between an employee and an employee representative in connection with representation relating to any matter within the scope of the recognized employee organization’s representation. The bill would also prohibit a public employer from compelling a public employee, a representative of a recognized employee organization, or an exclusive representative to disclose those confidential communications to a third party. The bill would not apply to a criminal investigation or when a public safety officer is under investigation and certain circumstances exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 465
|
(Zbur D) Local public employees: memoranda of understanding.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/13/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/6/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/13/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 4/23/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (act), authorizes local public employees, as defined, to form, join, and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on matters of labor relations and defines various terms for these purposes. The act prohibits a public agency from, among other things, refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith with a recognized employee organization. Existing law states that the Legislature finds and declares that the duties and responsibilities of local agency employer representatives under the act are substantially similar to the duties and responsibilities required under existing collective bargaining enforcement procedures and therefore the costs incurred by the local agency employer representatives in performing those duties and responsibilities under that act are not reimbursable as state-mandated costs. This bill would require, on or after January 1, 2026, a memorandum of understanding between a public agency and a recognized employee organization to include specified provisions including, among other things, a provision providing for a system of progressive discipline that grants due process to an employee when they are disciplined, upon the request of the recognized employee organization. The bill would define “progressive discipline” and “due process” for this purpose. The bill would specify that the refusal or failure to include those provisions in a memorandum of understanding upon request of the recognized employee organization constitutes refusing or failing to meet and negotiate in good faith for purposes of the above-described prohibition. By imposing new requirements on public agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 569
|
(Stefani D) California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013: exceptions: supplemental defined benefit plans.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/12/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/21/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), on and after January 1, 2013, requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with PEPRA, as specified. Among other things, PEPRA prohibits a public employer from offering a defined benefit pension plan exceeding specified retirement formulas, requires new members of public retirement systems to contribute at least a specified amount of the normal cost, as defined, for their defined benefit plans, and prohibits an enhancement of a public employee’s retirement formula or benefit adopted after January 1, 2013, from applying to service performed prior to the operative date of the enhancement. PEPRA prohibits a public employer from offering a supplemental defined benefit plan if the public employer did not do so before January 1, 2013, or, if it did, from offering that plan to an additional employee group after that date. This bill would authorize a public employer, as defined, to bargain over contributions for supplemental retirement benefits administered by, or on behalf of, an exclusive bargaining representative of one or more of the public employer’s bargaining units, subject to the limitations specified above. This bill contains other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 746
|
(McKinnor D) Inmate Cooperative Program.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/18/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/14/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law creates specified programs that employ inmates, including the joint venture program, which is established by the Secretary of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation within state prisons that allows a public entity, nonprofit or for-profit entity, organization, or business to employ inmates confined in the state prison system for the purpose of producing goods or services. Existing law also establishes the Prison Industry Authority within the department for the purpose of developing and operating industrial, agricultural, and service enterprises employing prisoners in institutions under the jurisdiction of the department and for the purpose of creating and maintaining working conditions within the enterprises to ensure prisoners employed have the opportunity to work productively, to earn funds, and to acquire or improve effective work habits and occupational skills. Existing law requires, upon appropriation by the Legislature, the Office of Small Business Advocate within the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to establish the California Employee Ownership Hub that would, among other things, work with all California state agencies whose regulations and programs affect employee-owned companies, and businesses with the potential to become employee owned, to enhance opportunities and reduce barriers. This bill would require the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish the Inmate Cooperative Program to facilitate operations of inmate worker cooperatives within state prison facilities. The bill would authorize a group of inmates who seek to establish a worker cooperative to apply to the program by submitting an application to the warden of the facility. The bill would require the warden to approve an application only if the applicant, or a cooperative community partner acting on their behalf, submits a plan of operation to the warden containing specified information, including, among other things, the cooperative’s draft bylaws, which describe the cooperative’s mission, the cooperative’s internal governance structure, an initial management structure, and compensation structure. The bill would define a cooperative community partner as a nonprofit organization, cooperative association, cooperative corporation, or individual that supports the inmates with the establishment, operation, and governance of certified inmate cooperatives. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 756
|
(Calderon D) State public employment: memorandum of understanding: State Bargaining Unit 6.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/18/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was PRINT on 2/18/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described statutory provisions, would approve a memorandum of understanding entered into between the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6, as of an unspecified date. The bill would provide that the provisions of the memorandum of understanding requiring the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for those provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would require the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6 to meet and confer to renegotiate the affected provisions if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would specify that the provisions of the memorandum of understanding requiring the expenditure of funds will become effective even if these provisions are approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 814
|
(Schiavo D) Personal Income Tax Law: exclusions: law enforcement retirement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/19/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/19/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/5/2025-In committee: Set, second hearing. Held under submission.
|
|
|
Location: 3/24/2025-A. REV. & TAX SUSPENSE FILE
|
|
|
Summary: The Personal Income Tax Law, in conformity with federal income tax law, generally defines “gross income” as income from whatever source derived, except as specifically excluded, and provides various exclusions from gross income. This bill, for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, would exclude from gross income qualified payments received by a taxpayer during the taxable year. The bill would define qualified payments to mean either amounts received from a pension plan the taxpayer is the beneficiary of based on services performed as a peace officer, as defined, or amounts received as the beneficiary of an annuity plan set up for the surviving spouse or dependent of a person that lost their life in services as a peace officer, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 980
|
(Arambula D) Health care: medically necessary treatment.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/21/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/21/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was HEALTH on 3/10/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of mental health and substance use disorders under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions, as specified. Existing law generally authorizes a health care service plan or health insurer to use utilization review to approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. This bill would require a health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, to provide coverage for medically necessary treatment of physical conditions and diseases under the same terms and conditions applied to other medical conditions, as specified. The bill would require the delivery of medically necessary services out of network if those services are not available within geographic and timely access standards. The bill would require a plan or insurer to apply specified clinical criteria and guidelines in conducting utilization review of the covered health care services and benefits for physical conditions and diseases. The bill would authorize the Director of the Department of Managed Health Care or the Insurance Commissioner, as applicable, to assess administrative or civil penalties, as specified, for violation of the requirements relating to utilization review. Because a willful violation of these requirements relative to health care service plans would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1054
|
(Gipson D) Public employees’ retirement: deferred retirement option program.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was P.E. & R. on 3/24/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, prescribes retirement benefits for members of specified county and district retirement systems. Existing law establishes the Deferred Retirement Option Program as an optional benefit program for specified safety members of those systems that, by ordinance or resolution by the county board of supervisors or the governing body, elect to adopt it. The program provides eligible members access, upon service retirement, to a lump sum or, in some cases, monthly payments in addition to a monthly retirement allowance, as specified. Existing law, the Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL), creates the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) for the purpose of providing pension benefits to state employees and employees of contracting agencies and prescribes the rights and duties of members of the system and their beneficiaries. Existing law vests management and control of PERS in its board of administration. PERS provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. This bill would establish the Deferred Retirement Option Program as a voluntary program within PERS for employees of State Bargaining Units 5 (Highway Patrol) and 8 (Firefighters). The bill would require these state bargaining units to bargain with the Department of Human Resources to implement the program. The bill would also require the program to result in a cost savings or be cost neutral. The bill would further require the department to work with the board of PERS to develop the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1067
|
(Quirk-Silva D) Public employees’ retirement: felony convictions.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/23/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/23/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/9/2025-VOTE: Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations] with the recommendation: To Consent Calendar (PASS)
|
|
|
Location: 7/9/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013, requires a public employee who is convicted of any state or federal felony for conduct arising out of, or in the performance of, the public employee’s official duties in pursuit of the office or appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability retirement, service retirement, or other benefits, to forfeit all accrued rights and benefits in any public retirement system from the earliest date of the commission of the felony to the date of conviction, and prohibits the public employee from accruing further benefits in that public retirement system. Existing law defines “public employee” for purposes of these provisions to mean an officer, including one who is elected or appointed, or an employee of a public employer. Existing law also requires an elected public officer, who takes public office, or is reelected to public office, on or after January 1, 2006, and who is convicted during or after holding office of any felony involving accepting or giving, or offering to give, any bribe, the embezzlement of public money, extortion or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes arising directly out of their official duties as an elected public officer, to forfeit all rights and benefits under, and membership in, any public retirement system in which they are a member, effective on the date of final conviction, as provided. This bill would require a public employer that is investigating a public employee for misconduct arising out of or in the performance of, the public employee’s official duties in pursuit of the office or appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability retirement, service retirement, or other benefits, to continue the investigation even if the public employee retires while under investigation, if the investigation indicates that the public employee may have committed a crime. The bill would require a public employer, if the investigation indicates that the public employee may have committed a crime, to refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and would then authorize the public employer to close the investigation. Under the bill, if a felony conviction results arising out of any conduct described above, the public employee would forfeit all accrued rights and benefits in any public retirement system pursuant to the provisions governing forfeiture described above. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1221
|
(Bryan D) Workplace surveillance tools.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 5/6/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 5/6/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/14/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law authorizes the division, which is headed by the Labor Commissioner, to enforce the Labor Code and all labor laws of the state, the enforcement of which is not specifically vested in any other officer, board, or commission. This bill would generally regulate the use of workplace surveillance tools and an employer’s use of worker data. The bill would, among other things, require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, to provide a worker who will be affected a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the worker data to be collected, the intended purpose of the workplace surveillance tool, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose. The bill would define “employer” to include public employers, as specified. The bill would prohibit an employer from transferring, selling, disclosing, or licensing worker data to a vendor, unless the vendor is under contract to analyze or interpret the worker data and the contract includes certain terms. The bill would prohibit an employer from using certain workplace surveillance tools, including a workplace surveillance tool that incorporates facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology, except as specified. The bill would also prohibit an employer from using a workplace surveillance tool to infer specified categories of information about a worker, including, among others, their immigration status, veteran status, ancestral history, religious or political beliefs, disability status, criminal record, or credit history. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce the bill’s provisions, would authorize an employee to bring a civil action for specified remedies for a violation of the bill’s provisions, and would authorize a public prosecutor to enforce the provisions. The bill would subject an employer who violates the bill’s provisions to a civil penalty of $500 for each violation. The bill would define various terms for purposes of its provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1309
|
(Flora R) State employees: compensation: firefighters.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/21/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/7/2025-In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
|
|
|
Location: 7/7/2025-S. APPR. SUSPENSE FILE
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that in order for the state to recruit skilled firefighters for the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider prevailing salaries and benefits prior to making salary recommendations. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources, in order to provide comparability in pay, to take into consideration the salary and benefits of other jurisdictions employing 75 or more full-time firefighters who work in California. This bill would require the state to pay firefighters who are rank-and-file members of State Bargaining Unit 8, employed by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, within 15% of the average salary for corresponding ranks in 20 listed California fire departments. The bill would require the state and the exclusive representative for State Bargaining Unit 8 to jointly survey annually and calculate the estimated average salaries for those fire departments. The bill would also require the Department of Human Resources, on or before January 1, 2027, to conduct and report to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection a cursory survey on the salaries and benefits for the prior year of each of the fire chiefs for 5 listed California fire departments. The bill would provide that when determining compensation for uniformed classifications of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, it is the policy of the state to consider the salary of corresponding ranks within the comparable jurisdictions listed, as well as other factors, including internal comparisons. The bill would require any salary increase for firefighters under these provisions to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with specified procedures governing collective bargaining agreements. The bill would include legislative findings and declarations related to its provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1331
|
(Elhawary D) Workplace surveillance.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/19/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/19/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/25/2025-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 4. Noes 1.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
|
|
|
Location: 6/25/2025-S. JUD.
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/15/2025 9:30 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 112 SENATE JUDICIARY, UMBERG, THOMAS, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law establishes the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations. Existing law authorizes the division, which is headed by the Labor Commissioner, to enforce the Labor Code and all labor laws of the state the enforcement of which is not specifically vested in any other officer, board or commission. This bill would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in employee-only, employer-designated areas, as specified. The bill would provide workers with the right to leave behind workplace surveillance tools that are on their person or in their possession during off-duty hours, as specified. This bill would subject an employer who violates the bill to a civil penalty of $500 per employee for each violation and would authorize a public prosecutor to bring specified enforcement actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1383
|
(McKinnor D) Public employees’ retirement benefits.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/11/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/11/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/14/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The Public Employees’ Retirement Law (PERL) establishes the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) to provide a defined benefit to members of the system based on final compensation, credited service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. Existing law creates the Public Employees’ Retirement Fund, which is continuously appropriated for purposes of PERS, including depositing employer and employee contributions. Under the California Constitution, assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds. The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) establishes a variety of requirements and restrictions on public employers offering defined benefit pension plans. In this regard, PEPRA restricts the amount of compensation that may be applied for purposes of calculating a defined pension benefit for a new member, as defined, by restricting it to specified percentages of the contribution and benefit base under a specified federal law with respect to old age, survivors, and disability insurance benefits. This bill, on and after January 1, 2026, would require a retirement system to adjust pensionable compensation limits to be consistent with a defined benefit limitation established and annually adjusted under federal law with respect to tax exempt qualified trusts. This bill contains other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1415
|
(Bonta D) California Health Care Quality and Affordability Act.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/2/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/2/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/2/2025-From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 6/26/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the California Health Care Quality and Affordability Act, establishes within the Department of Health Care Access and Information the Office of Health Care Affordability 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, set and enforce cost targets, and create a state strategy for controlling the cost of health care and ensuring affordability for consumers and purchasers. Existing law requires the office to conduct ongoing research and evaluation on payers, fully integrated delivery systems, and providers to determine whether the definitions or other provisions of the act include those entities that significantly affect health care cost, quality, equity, and workforce stability. Existing law defines multiple terms relating to these provisions, including a health care entity to mean a payer, provider, or a fully integrated delivery system and a provider to mean specified entities delivering or furnishing health care services. This bill would update the definitions applying to these provisions, including defining a provider to mean specified entities delivering or furnishing health care services. The bill would include additional definitions, including, but not limited to, a hedge fund to mean a pool of funds managed by investors for the purpose of earning a return on those funds, regardless of strategies used to manage the funds, subject to certain exceptions. The bill would require the office to conduct ongoing research and evaluation on management services organizations, as specified, and to establish requirements for management services organizations to submit data and other information as necessary to carry out the functions of the office. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AB 1439
|
(Garcia D) Public retirement systems: development projects: labor standards.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was P.E. & R. on 3/24/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-A. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: The California Constitution grants the retirement board of a public employee retirement system plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the retirement fund and system. These provisions qualify this grant of powers by reserving to the Legislature the authority to prohibit investments if it is in the public interest and the prohibition satisfies standards of fiduciary care and loyalty required of a retirement board. Existing law prohibits the boards of the Public Employees’ Retirement System and the State Teachers’ Retirement System from making certain new investments or renewing existing investments of public employee retirement funds, including in a thermal coal company, as defined. Existing law provides that a board is not required to take any action regarding those investments unless the board determines in good faith that the action is consistent with the board’s fiduciary responsibilities established in the California Constitution. This bill would prohibit the board of a public pension or retirement system from making any additional or new investments of public employee pension or retirement funds in development projects in California or providing financing for those projects with public employee pension or retirement funds unless those projects include labor standards protections, as defined. The bill would provide that a board is not required to take action pursuant to this provision unless it determines in good faith that the action is consistent with the board’s fiduciary responsibilities established in the California Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABX1 1
|
(Gabriel D) Budget Act of 2024.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 1/10/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/2/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 1/10/2025
|
|
|
Status: 2/3/2025-From committee without further action.
|
|
|
Location: 1/9/2025-A. BUDGET
|
|
|
Summary: The Budget Act of 2024 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2024–25 fiscal year.This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2024 by making changes to existing appropriations, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACA 1
|
(Valencia D) Public finance.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 12/2/2024 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/2/2024
|
|
|
Status: 1/29/2025-Introduced measure version corrected.
|
|
|
Location: 12/2/2024-A. PRINT
|
|
|
Summary: The California Constitution prohibits the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of the State and of each local government from exceeding the appropriations limit of the entity of government for the prior year adjusted for the change in the cost of living and the change in population. The California Constitution defines “appropriations subject to limitation” of the State for these purposes. This measure would change the 1.5% required transfer to an undetermined percentage of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. The measure would change the 10% limit on the balance in the Budget Stabilization Account to 20% of the amount of the General Fund proceeds of taxes for the fiscal year estimate, as specified. The measure would specify that funds transferred under these provisions to the Budget Stabilization Account do not constitute appropriations subject to the above-described annual appropriations limit. This bill contains other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 40
|
(Wiener D) Health care coverage: insulin.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/27/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/27/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/27/2025-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 6/5/2025-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/15/2025 1:30 p.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 1100 ASSEMBLY HEALTH, BONTA, MIA, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act’s requirements a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract or disability insurance policy issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2000, that covers prescription benefits to include coverage for insulin if it is determined to be medically necessary. This bill would prohibit a large group health care service plan contract or health insurance policy issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after January 1, 2026, or an individual or small group health care service plan contract or health insurance policy on or after January 1, 2027, from imposing a copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or other cost sharing of more than $35 for a 30-day supply of an insulin prescription drug, except as specified. On and after January 1, 2026, the bill would prohibit a health care service plan or health insurer from imposing step therapy as a prerequisite to authorizing coverage of insulin, and, for a large group health care service plan contract or health insurance policy, would require at least one insulin for a given drug type in all forms and concentrations to be on the prescription drug formulary. The bill would limit the $35 cap for an individual or small group health care service plan contract or health insurance policy to only Tier 1 and Tier 2 insulin if the drug formulary is grouped into tiers, except as provided. Because a willful violation of these provisions by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 41
|
(Wiener D) Pharmacy benefits.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/9/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/9/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/9/2025-From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
|
|
|
Location: 7/9/2025-A. JUD.
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/15/2025 8:30 a.m. - State Capitol, Room 437 ASSEMBLY JUDICIARY, KALRA, ASH, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law requires a pharmacy benefit manager engaging in business with a health care service plan or health insurer to secure a license from the Department of Managed Health Care on or after January 1, 2027, or the date on which the department has established the licensure process, whichever is later. This bill would prohibit a pharmacy benefit manager from, among other things, unreasonably obstructing or interfering with a patient’s right to timely access a prescription drug or device at a contract pharmacy, requiring use of only an affiliated pharmacy, as specified, and from imposing requirements, conditions, or exclusions that discriminate against a nonaffiliated pharmacy in connection with dispensing drugs. The bill would limit a pharmacy benefit manager’s income to that derived from a pharmacy benefit management fee for pharmacy benefit management services provided, and would require a pharmacy benefit manager to use a passthrough pricing model. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to recover specified civil penalties and receive equitable relief for violations of the pharmacy benefit manager licensing provisions. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 62
|
(Menjivar D) Health care coverage: essential health benefits.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/1/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/9/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/1/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/1/2025-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
|
|
|
Location: 6/5/2025-A. HEALTH
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/15/2025 1:30 p.m. - 1021 O Street, Room 1100 ASSEMBLY HEALTH, BONTA, MIA, Chair
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, requires the Department of Managed Health Care to license and regulate health care service plans and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law requires an individual or small group health care service plan contract issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2017, to include, at a minimum, coverage for essential health benefits pursuant to the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Existing law requires a health care service plan contract to cover the same health benefits that the benchmark plan, the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO 30 plan, offered during the first quarter of 2014, as specified. This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to review California’s essential health benefits benchmark plan and establish a new benchmark plan for the 2027 plan year for health care service plans. The bill would require, commencing January 1, 2027, if the United States Department of Health and Human Services approves a new essential health benefits benchmark plan for the state, as specified, the benchmark plan for health care service plans to include certain additional benefits, including coverage for specified fertility services and specified durable medical equipment. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 101
|
(Wiener D) Budget Act of 2025.
|
|
|
Current Text: Chaptered: 6/27/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/23/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/9/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/27/2025-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 4, Statutes of 2025.
|
|
|
Location: 6/27/2025-S. CHAPTERED
|
|
|
Summary: This bill would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 102
|
(Wiener D) Budget Act of 2025.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/24/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/23/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/24/2025-From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on BUDGET.
|
|
|
Location: 3/24/2025-A. BUDGET
|
|
|
Summary: The Budget Act of 2025 would make appropriations for the support of state government for the 2025–26 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2025 by amending, adding, and repealing items of appropriation and making other changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as a Budget Bill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 139
|
(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) State Bargaining Unit 9 and State Bargaining Unit 12.
|
|
|
Current Text: Chaptered: 6/30/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/23/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/25/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/30/2025-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 25, Statutes of 2025
|
|
|
Location: 6/30/2025-S. CHAPTERED
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to provide a memorandum of understanding to the Legislative Analyst, who then has 10 calendar days from the date the tentative agreement is received to issue a fiscal analysis to the Legislature. Existing law prohibits the memorandum of understanding from being subject to legislative determination until either the Legislative Analyst has presented a fiscal analysis of the memorandum of understanding or until 10 calendar days have elapsed since the memorandum was received by the Legislative Analyst. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described statutory provisions, would approve provisions of the agreement entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 9 and State Bargaining Unit 12. The bill would provide that the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for these provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would authorize the state employer or State Bargaining Unit 9 or State Bargaining Unit 12 to reopen negotiations if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would require the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds to become effective even if the provisions are approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 140
|
(Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review) State Bargaining Unit 6.
|
|
|
Current Text: Chaptered: 6/30/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/23/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/24/2025
|
|
|
Status: 6/30/2025-Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 26, Statutes of 2025
|
|
|
Location: 6/30/2025-S. CHAPTERED
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law provides that a provision of a memorandum of understanding reached between the state employer and a recognized employee organization representing state civil service employees that requires the expenditure of funds does not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to provide a memorandum of understanding to the Legislative Analyst, who then has 10 calendar days from the date the tentative agreement is received to issue a fiscal analysis to the Legislature. Existing law prohibits the memorandum of understanding from being subject to legislative determination until either the Legislative Analyst has presented a fiscal analysis of the memorandum of understanding or until 10 calendar days have elapsed since the memorandum was received by the Legislative Analyst. This bill, notwithstanding the above-described statutory provisions, would approve provisions of the agreement entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Unit 6. The bill would provide that the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds will not take effect unless funds for these provisions are specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would authorize the state employer or State Bargaining Unit 6 to reopen negotiations if funds for these provisions are not specifically appropriated by the Legislature. The bill would require the provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds to become effective even if the provisions approved by the Legislature in legislation other than the annual Budget Act. By approving provisions of the agreement that require the expenditure of funds, this bill would make an appropriation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 366
|
(Smallwood-Cuevas D) Employment: artificial intelligence.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/9/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/13/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/9/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 5/12/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law establishes the Department of General Services in the Government Operations Agency for purposes of providing centralized services of state government. This bill would require the Department of General Services to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues. The bill would require the department, on or before June 1, 2027, to submit a report of the findings of the above-described study to the Legislature, as specified, and would repeal these provisions upon submission of that report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 401
|
(Hurtado D) Political Reform Act of 1974: state employees: financial interests.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 3/25/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/14/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 3/25/2025
|
|
|
Status: 4/10/2025-April 29 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.
|
|
|
Location: 4/2/2025-S. E. & C.A.
|
|
|
Summary: The Political Reform Act of 1974 prohibits a public official, including an employee of a state agency, from using their official position to make, participate in making, or influence a governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know that the official has a financial interest, as specified. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would further prohibit an employee of a state agency from owning or controlling a financial interest in any business entity that is subject to the regulatory authority of the state agency, or that does business with the state agency. The bill would authorize the head of a state agency to grant an employee a waiver from this prohibition only upon a finding that ownership or control of the financial interest is otherwise consistent with the act and that the employee will not make, participate in making, or attempt to influence a governmental decision in which the employee has a financial interest. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 443
|
(Rubio D) Retirement: joint powers authorities.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 6/23/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/18/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 6/23/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/3/2025-Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
|
|
|
Location: 7/3/2025-A. THIRD READING
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/14/2025 #46 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING FILE - SENATE BILLS
|
|
|
Summary: The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA) requires a public retirement system, as defined, to modify its plan or plans to comply with the act and, among other provisions, establishes new retirement formulas that may not be exceeded by a public employer offering a defined benefit pension plan for employees first hired on or after January 1, 2013. Existing law, the Joint Exercise of Powers Act, generally authorizes 2 or more public agencies, by agreement, to jointly exercise any common power, which may include hiring employees and establishing retirement systems. Existing law authorizes a joint powers authority formed by the Cities of Brea and Fullerton, and a joint powers authority formed by the Belmont Fire Protection District, the Estero Municipal Improvement District, and the City of San Mateo, on or after January 1, 2013, to provide their employees the defined benefit plan or formula that those employees received from their respective employers prior to the exercise of a common power, to which the employee is associated, by the joint powers authority to any employee of specified cities and districts who is not a new member and subsequently is employed by the joint powers authority within 180 days of the city or agency providing for the exercise of a common power, to which the employee was associated, by the joint powers authority. This bill would authorize the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, a joint powers authority, to provide a defined benefit plan or formula to an employee of a member agency of the joint powers authority or of another public agency, as defined, who is not a new member and who is subsequently employed by the joint powers authority within 180 days of the effective date of the retirement plan contract amendment. The bill would authorize the Pajaro Regional Flood Management Agency, on or before April 1, 2026, to select a defined benefit plan or formula offered by one of its member agencies prior to the exercise of a common power which the member agency offered to its employees on December 31, 2012, and designate that formula for its employees, as described above. The bill would provide that it would not exempt a new employee or a new member from the requirements of PEPRA. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 538
|
(Dahle R) Public Employees’ Retirement System: teaching service.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/20/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/1/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(2). (Last location was L., P.E. & R. on 3/5/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/1/2025-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law authorizes a member of the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) who is subsequently employed to perform service subject to coverage by the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers’ Retirement Plan to elect to retain coverage by PERS for that subsequent service. Existing law prescribes requirements for the exercise of this election, including that the election be submitted in writing, as specified, within 60 days after the member’s date of hire to perform the service. Existing law authorized, until January 1, 2024, a member of PERS who provided emergency teaching services pursuant to a specified executive order to elect to retain coverage notwithstanding the failure to meet specified administrative requirements. This bill would authorize a member providing services as a substitute teacher, as defined, under certain circumstances to elect to retain coverage under PERS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 605
|
(Cortese D) State attorneys and administrative law judges: compensation.
|
|
|
Current Text: Introduced: 2/20/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Status: 5/23/2025-Failed Deadline pursuant to Rule 61(a)(5). (Last location was APPR. SUSPENSE FILE on 4/7/2025)(May be acted upon Jan 2026)
|
|
|
Location: 5/23/2025-S. 2 YEAR
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law requires the Department of Human Resources to establish and adjust salary ranges for each class of position in the state civil service. This bill would require that the salaries of state attorneys and administrative law judges in State Bargaining Unit 2 be no less than the average salaries of public sector attorneys, as specified. The bill would require the Department of Human Resources to annually conduct a survey of salary structures by March 1 of each year, as specified, and determine the average salary of public sector attorneys for each attorney classification, including the minimum salaries for entry-level attorneys, intermediate classifications, and the most senior nonmanagerial attorneys, noninclusive of negotiated differentials. The bill would require that state administrative law judges have salaries not less than the maximum salary of state attorneys classified at a specified level. The bill would require the department to make a good faith offer of parity in salary with respect to public sector agency attorneys’ and administrative law judges’ salaries in any negotiations with the exclusive bargaining representative. The bill would provide that no state attorney or administrative law judge classification shall be reduced in salary as a result of these provisions. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SB 853
|
(Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement) Public employees’ retirement.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 4/21/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 3/4/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 4/21/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/7/2025-From consent calendar on motion of Assembly Member Garcia. Ordered to third reading.
|
|
|
Location: 7/7/2025-A. THIRD READING
|
|
|
Calendar: 7/14/2025 #55 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING FILE - SENATE BILLS
|
|
|
Summary: Existing law, the Teachers’ Retirement Law, establishes the State Teachers’ Retirement System (STRS) and creates the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers’ Retirement Plan, which provides a defined benefit to members of the program, based on final compensation, creditable service, and age at retirement, subject to certain variations. STRS is administered by the Teachers’ Retirement Board. Existing law requires employers and employees to make contributions to the system based on the member’s creditable compensation. Existing law defines terms for the purposes of STRS. Existing law defines “employer” or “employing agency” to mean the state or any agency or political subdivision thereof, including a joint powers authority, as specified. Existing law also defines “membership” under the Teachers’ Retirement Law to mean membership in the Defined Benefit Program, except as specified. This bill would provide that the board has final authority for determining an “employer” or “employing agency” for purposes of the Teachers’ Retirement Law and related provisions governing teachers’ health care benefits. The bill would also provide that the board has final authority for determining membership in STRS, as specified. This bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SBX1 1
|
(Wiener D) Budget Act of 2024.
|
|
|
Current Text: Chaptered: 2/7/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/2/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 1/10/2025
|
|
|
Status: 2/7/2025-Approved by the Governor. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 3, Statutes of 2025.
|
|
|
Location: 2/7/2025-S. CHAPTERED
|
|
|
Summary: The Budget Act of 2024 made appropriations for the support of state government for the 2024–25 fiscal year. This bill would amend the Budget Act of 2024 by making changes to existing appropriations, as provided. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|