|
|
|
Support
|
|
|
|
AB
280
|
(Aguiar-Curry D)
Health care coverage: provider directories.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/15/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/15/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/15/2025-Read second time and amended.
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, 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, including whether the
provider is accepting new patients at the time, 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. The bill would authorize a health care service plan or insurer to
include a specified statement in the provider listing before removing the
provider from the directory if the provider does not respond within 5
calendar days of the plan or insurer’s annual notification. 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: 7/17/2025-Read second time. Ordered to
third reading.
|
|
|
Location: 7/17/2025-A. THIRD READING
|
|
|
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
138
|
(Committee on Budget) State employment: state bargaining
units.
|
|
|
Current Text: Enrollment: 7/18/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/8/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/14/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/18/2025-Enrolled and presented to the
Governor at 11:30 a.m.
|
|
|
Location: 7/18/2025-A. ENROLLED
|
|
|
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 agreements entered into by the
state employer and specified state bargaining units. The bill would provide
that the provisions of the agreements 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 the bargaining units 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. By approving provisions of the
agreements that require the expenditure of funds, this bill would make an
appropriation. This bill contains other related provisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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: 7/17/2025-From committee: Do pass and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 16). Re-referred to Com.
on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/17/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Calendar: 8/18/2025 10 a.m. - 1021
O Street, Room 2200 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, CABALLERO, ANNA,
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: 7/15/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 1/28/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/15/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/15/2025-Read second time and amended.
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, 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, subject to certain exceptions. 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: 7/16/2025-From committee: Do pass and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 2.) (July 15). Re-referred to Com.
on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/16/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Calendar: 8/18/2025 10 a.m. - 1021
O Street, Room 2200 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, CABALLERO, ANNA,
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: 7/15/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/20/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/15/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/15/2025-Read second time and amended.
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, 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
the public employee is convicted of a felony for 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: 7/17/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/21/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/17/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/17/2025-Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/16/2025-S. APPR.
|
|
|
Calendar: 8/18/2025 10 a.m. - 1021
O Street, Room 2200 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, CABALLERO, ANNA,
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.
|
|
|
Calendar: 8/18/2025 10 a.m. - 1021
O Street, Room 2200 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS, CABALLERO, ANNA,
Chair
|
|
|
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: 7/17/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/17/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/17/2025-Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/15/2025-A. 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’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: 7/17/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 12/3/2024
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/17/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/17/2025-Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/15/2025-A. 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 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: 7/16/2025-From committee: Do pass and
re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (July 15). Re-referred to Com.
on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/15/2025-A. APPR.
|
|
|
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
306
|
(Becker D)
Health care coverage: prior authorizations.
|
|
|
Current Text: Amended: 7/17/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 2/10/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/17/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/17/2025-Read second time and amended.
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
|
|
|
Location: 7/15/2025-A. 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 generally authorizes a health care service plan or health insurer
to use prior authorization and other utilization review or utilization
management functions, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health
care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may
approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on
medical necessity. Existing law requires a health care service plan or health
insurer, including those plans or insurers that delegate utilization review
or utilization management functions to medical groups, independent practice
associations, or to other contracting providers, to comply with specified
requirements and limitations on their utilization review or utilization
management functions. This bill would require the departments to issue
instructions on or before July 1, 2026, to health care service plans and
health insurers to report statistics regarding covered health care services
subject to prior authorization and the percentage rate at which they are
approved or modified, among other things. The bill would require a health
care service plan or health insurer to report those statistics, including
information from another entity to which the plan or insurer delegates
responsibility for prior authorization decisions, to the appropriate
department on or before December 31, 2026. The bill would require the
departments to evaluate these reports, identify the health care services most
frequently approved, and, on or before July 1, 2027, publish a list of the
services identified. Beginning on the date specified by the relevant
department, but no later than January 1, 2028, the bill would require a plan
or insurer, or its delegated entities, to cease requiring prior authorization
for the most frequently approved covered health care services. The bill would
authorize a plan or insurer to reinstate prior authorization for a specific
health care provider if it determines that the provider has engaged in
fraudulent activity or clinically inappropriate care, as specified. No later
than 4 years after the cessation of prior authorization requirements, the
bill would require the departments to publish reports regarding the impact of
that cessation using information reported by plans and insurers, including
data on reinstatements of prior authorization for specific providers. The
bill would repeal these provisions on January 1, 2034. Because a willful
violation of the bill’s requirements relative to health care service plans
would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This
bill contains other related provisions and other existing laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: 7/15/2025 html pdf
|
|
|
Introduced: 3/4/2025
|
|
|
Last Amend: 7/15/2025
|
|
|
Status: 7/15/2025-Read third time and amended.
Ordered to third reading.
|
|
|
Location: 7/7/2025-A. THIRD READING
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|