Assembly Appropriations Committee

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 8th, 2026 Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing. We have 59 bills to consider this morning as part of our regular order hearing. Before we begin, I have a housekeeping note to cover. Assembly Member Calderon will be absent from today's hearing. We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website at apro.assembly.ca.gov. Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment. It may be read into the record or reprinted. The hearing room is open for attendance. All are encouraged to watch the hearing from its live stream on the Assembly's website. We will accept public comment in any bill placed on the suspense file by the committee today and for which the author waived presentation before the close of the regular order hearing. testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position on the bill. The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total. As you came into the hearing room today, the sergeant directed your attention to the rules for public attendance and participation, which were posted outside the store. I encourage members of the public who are in attendance to be aware and observe those rules. Everyone should be on their best behavior. Okay, we're going to establish a quorum. Is that mic not working?

Can Senator Hoover is your mic working No none of them I think this is the only mic working I silenced

Okay. Okay. There we go. Okay. Okay. Taking roll. Establishing a quorum. Wicks?

Wicks here. Hoover?

Arambula. Colosa.

Dixon here. Fong.

Mark Gonzalez. Mark Gonzalez here.

Krell here. Yurisuchi. Pacheco.

Pacheco here. Pellerin.

Salache here. Ta.

Ta here. Tongapa. Okay, we have a quorum, and with that I would like to take up the consent calendar. We have two – we'll take up bills on the consent calendar in two different motions. The first motion is due pass to consent, applies to bills that enjoy unanimous support in this committee and are eligible for the assembly floor's consent calendar consistent with assembly rules. Do we have a motion on that?

We have a motion and a second. Okay, consent calendar. These are all ABs. 2588 Hadwick 2685 Committee on Agriculture Those are out on an A roll call The second motion do pass applies to bills that also enjoy unanimous support in this committee but are not eligible for the Assembly floor consent calendar consistent with Assembly rules. Do we have a motion on this?

In a second. Great Consent calendar Part 2, all ABs 1659 Ransom 1-9-8-2 Lowenthal 1-9-8-7 Aguirre-Curry Those are also out on an A-roll call With that, let's take up

Madam Secretary, would you please read the suspense calendar? These are all ABs 1-5-3-5 1-5-3-8 1-5-6-8 1-5-9-2 1593, 1595, 1600, 1615, 1629, 1642, 1645, 1646, 1648, 1667, 1671, 1681, 1691, 1716, 1737, 1741, 1752, 1763, 1777, 1780, 1804, 1848, 1868, 1872, 1889, 1891, 1900, 1-907-1910-1938-2066-2081-2260-2326-2352-2566. The suspense calendar is deemed approved. With that, we are going to move to bills to be presented to the committee, and I see Ms. Irwin was the first to sign up. Step up to the plate and you are presenting AB 1977.

Can you turn your mic on?

I'm Adam Lewin with the Secretary of State on behalf of Dr. Shirley Weber. AB 1977 is the Secretary of State-sponsored bill that amends the Online Notarization Act, SB 696, Chapter 291, Statutes of 2023, Portentino, which established for the first time a framework for licensed California notaries to conduct online notarizations. In implementing that legislation, our office has identified a number of technical issues that are slowing implementation and creating unnecessary complexity. The proposed amendments primarily clarifying existing provisions and address portions of the law that have not yet gone into effect. Specifically, the bill resolves inconsistencies in definitions and procedures, updates existing licensing and training requirements, and provides clear guidance for the authentication of electronic seals. In short, AB 1977 will help streamline and expedite implementation of online notarization in California. because this is a technical cleanup bill. The costs are absorbable within existing resources. We thank Assemblymember Erwin for her partnership and leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

That's why you have Costco. Exactly. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. It is a pleasure to be back with you. I miss being with you on that side of the dais In fact I see my old chair empty there and hopefully somebody will sit there We just saving it for you Thank you Madam Chair It makes me feel warm and welcome I pleased to present AB 2011 a bill to codify existing federal mental health parity standards into state law. Last year, the Trump administration recklessly stopped enforcing federal protections that require insurers to demonstrate that they provide equal access to mental health and substance use disorder care, as they do with traditional medicine. California has continued enforcing these regulations through the Department of Insurance and the Department of Managed Health Care, but the state's authority to do so could be revoked depending on federal changes. AB 2011 enshrines those protections in state law, so state regulators can continue to enforce parity requirements. This bill does not expand covered benefits, create any new mandates, or impose any new duties or regulations. It only codifies existing standards the state is already enforcing in full effect. Here with me today is Miguel Bastidas with the California Department of Insurance.

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Miguel Bastidas. I'm with the California Department of Insurance here under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. Here in strong support of the bill, just for the department's perspective, we don't anticipate any cost to the department. Thank you.

Thank you. Vanessa Kahina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support. Good morning. Mike Sharif with Fans Law Government Affairs on behalf of the Steinberg Institute in support.

Good morning, Chair members. Olga Shiloh here on behalf of the California Association of Helplands. Respectfully in opposition to AB 2011. Our concerns with the bill are primarily with the policy, but we believe they will have an impact on the state. AB 2011 attempts to codify an unsettled federal rule. The 2024 federal parity rule has been paused for review and at the same time is subject to ongoing litigation. And just last week, the federal government announced that it plans to issue a new proposed rule by December 30th of this year. Efforts to advance parity laws at the state level should be held off until the federal rules are shored up. We believe AB 2011 risks increasing costs and complexity without delivering meaningful improvements for patients, and for these reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Stephanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies. I'd echo my colleagues' comments. Our primary concerns are around the policy, although we do think that this could have certain premium impacts to the degree these deviate from what the federal government does in 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. To clarify, this bill does not expand covered benefits. It does not create any new mandates and does not impose any new duties on regulators. California already has strong parity laws, but this bill codifies the federal rules that define how plans must use real-world data to demonstrate compliance. California can't afford to lose the tools needed to enforce these laws. California often codifies federal standards to protect consumers and this is no different This bill doesn create additional uncertainty Rather it reduces uncertainty and potentially costs by ensuring regulatory consistency And I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. I would first like to thank the Chair and the committee staff for working with me on this critical issue. My communities are overwhelmed by high volumes of conflicts with large predators. Rural counties in my district struggle with mountain lions, bears, or wolves, killing livestock pets and people. AB 1673 gives my communities more resources, tools, and flexibility to manage these threats. Currently, county Fish and Game Commissions can use revenue generated from violations of the Fish and Game Code to protect fish and wildlife. This bill gives these county commissions more flexibility by allowing them to use this funding for wildlife conflict prevention. AB 1673 will help counties manage wildlife better while supporting communities most impacted by wildlife conflict. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

She's not here.

Yes, I will be quick.

Good morning, Chair and members. AB 2233 addresses a narrow but important gap in our healthcare system, ensuring that when care is bridge-wide and approved, patients can act on accesses. Children with autism across California are facing real challenge, accessing applied behavioral analysis therapy. Even after a doctor's bridge-wide care and healthcare plan authorizes, families often cannot fully use those hours. This results in a significant gap between approval and access. Families are not declining care. They are unable to find available providers or are navigating cancellation and scheduling barriers. when children miss section due to illness or provider availability or for numerous legitimate reasons. Those unused hours may be counted against them while recognizing health plans play a real role in managing care responsibly and safeguarding against inappropriate uses through utilization review and medical necessity determination AB 2233 does not interfere those process. Plan will continue to have full authority to review care ensure clinical appropriateness and address the demand concerns such as fraud or over All this bill does is clarify that once care is authorized, it should not be effectively reduced to administrative constraints that are unrelated to medical need. This is about aligning practice with original intent of organization, ensuring that approved care remains meaningfully available. AB 2233 does not expand benefits or manage new services. It simply ensures that assistance approved care is accessible throughout the organization period. It also encourages a shared responsibility where patients are protected and plan to remain empowered to manage care appropriately. Families should not lose access to care due to circumstances outside their control, and our system works best when authorization reflects a real opportunity to receive care and not be left behind.

Hi there. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Emily Moshita, and I'm a certified behavior analyst with over 10 years of experience serving children with disabilities and behavioral health needs. I am a director of clinical services at 360 Behavioral Health, which has 23 clinics in California as far south as El Centro, all the way up through here in Sacramento. Thank you for the opportunity for me to speak in support of AB 2233. I'm here not just as a clinician, but also as a parent of four neurodiverse kids, two who have autism and benefit daily from ABA services. The program, and I have seen firsthand what happens when children lose access to care. The process, the progress our children make is built hour by hour. Those hours represent learning to communicate, to stay safe, and to build crucial life skills. When we impose a strict weekly cap, we are not just adjusting a schedule. We're taking away opportunities that children cannot get back. The families we serve are doing everything they can, but life is unpredictable. Some examples that affect continuity of care include complex situations that cannot always be foreseen. For example, family members being diagnosed with cancer so a client can't receive services, or having a client with comorbidities that lead to hospital stays and surgeries, or even a child and a parent who have to go into a domestic violence shelter, which interrupts the child's day-to-day services. And when a child misses a week due to illness or some of these family emergencies, those hours are simply lost under a weekly cap, and there's no opportunity to recover them. But when a child is ready to return, the ability to make up even some of those hours means the difference between progress and regression. And this does not impact all families equally. Those with fewer resources, single parents, caregivers working multiple jobs, or those with inflexible work schedules are disproportionately affected. A rigid cap removes the little flexibility that they do have to access these services in entirety. From a clinical perspective, what matters is the total amount of care over time. Behavioral treatment requires flexibility to meet the child where they're at. AB 2233 ensures medical necessity care can be delivered in a way that truly serves the children and families, not an arbitrary schedule. Thank you. I urge your support.

I'll stand. Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Cassidy Heckman, on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans, respectfully opposed to the bill today. While the analysis notes minor and absorbable costs to the state, we believe the bill will result in increased health care spending. I'm sure you're aware of the recent press articles by The Wall Street Journal and the federal audit into these therapies and programs, which resulted in the audit finding that there were significant billing errors and mistakes in the treatment and as well as the federal government recommending that the states pay back for their Medicaid payments. So we believe this bill removes core utilization guardrails and can create a safe harbor for bad actors and respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Stephanie Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies, in the interest of time, we'll echo my colleagues' comments. We are concerned primarily on the policy, but do believe that this policy shift will have a direct impact in the increase of premiums. And given the fact that the federal government has suspended at this point the enhanced subsidies, and we know that access to coverage is incredibly important, we think that this potentially could limit that. So for those reasons, we are opposed. Look forward to having conversations in the future. Thank you.

I really appreciate the chair support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. appreciate the committee's analysis and work reflected in AB 1660. As noted, I'm accepting the committee amendments. AB 1660 is a straightforward measure to ensure that financial institutions are responsive to public guardians and public conservators that Californians rely on With the amendment this bill gives courts the flexibility to consider facts of each case ensuring accountability for bad actors while protecting institutions acting in good faith. My office is actively engaged in conversations with opposition, developing language based on suggestions provided in their recent letter. This bill is anticipated to have likely minor costs to the state. I have Trent Smith representing public administrators who is here to testify as well. You can begin when you're ready.

Thank you. Any additional folks in the room wish to express support? Any primary witnesses in opposition? Any additional folks in opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. We have a motion and a second. And with that, that is out with Republicans not voting. Sorry, would you like to close?

That is out with Republicans not voting, with Mr. Hoover voting no and Mr. Ta voting aye. And sorry, do pass. Oh, it's amended. Do pass is amended. I'm sorry. This do pass is amended. Thank you, Ms. Shervo. Okay, we are done hearing bills. I want to move on now to general public comment. I want to open up the hearing to comments by members of the public on any bill not presented in committee today. Please be sure to limit your comments to your name, organization, if any, and your position on the bill. If there's anyone in the hearing room who would like to state their position on the bill, please step up to the mic. And the mic will hopefully be on. There you go. Thank you very much.

thank you thank you anyone else okay we are going to wait for mr uh meritsuchi and miss coloza Mr. McKaylee, do you have anything else to add? It's okay. Sorry, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Great. Thank you. We're gonna hang tight for a little bit, waiting for two other members to join. Yeah, you're good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. And we're just waiting for Mr. Martsuchi. If you are Mr. Martsuchi, please feel free to. That is quite an entourage. Hello, Mr. Marzucchi. You are here and your votes are recorded. Okay, very good. Thank you. And with that, we are meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.