Health — 2026-06-10 (stale)

Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. First, I would like to thank the committee chair and staff for the collaboration on this bill. I truly appreciate working with me, and I will be accepting the committee amendments. Today I'm presenting AB 1734, the Count Hunger Act, which responds to the highest cost of living in the nation, yet our current surveys do not reflect that reality. Without accurate data, we lose sight of who is struggling to put food on the table, and what disappears really is our ability to respond. We cannot solve a problem that we cannot see, and the Count Hunger Act recognizes the importance of realities of California's high cost of living, such as in San Francisco, L.A., San Diego, areas where normally food insecurity is not left behind. And with me today to testify in support are Marshawn and Maxwell from the San Francisco Marin Food Bank.

with the San Francisco Marin Food Bank. This CHIS survey is foundational and fundamental and has been used in foreign key policy decisions, health policy research. It reaches over 25,000 households yearly across a variety of topics in health. The CHIS study has been a valuable supplement alongside the recently canceled national survey. Conducted annually, this is valuable research that California can use. However, with the impacts of federal cuts to these social safety net programs and the uncertainty funding for future surveys, this survey is too in jeopardy of not being a tool that California can use. The actions California should take is to expand a survey to include households at 400% of the poverty line. That's approximately $128,000 for a family of four, roughly the cost of living in California. The expansion will provide us with a sustainable source of data on food security prevalence as the cost of living in California increases. I will let my colleague Maxwell explain

Hi, my name is Maxwell Titsworth and I'm the Chief Data and Technology Officer of the San Francisco Marin Food Bank. And I can tell you that we are at risk of flying blind. As you heard, the USDA hunger survey has been suspended and its most recent data showed us that food insecurity is reaching a record high nationally. And this CHIS food security screener, our best remaining state tool, is at risk. AB 1734 aims to fix this. We aim to retain the existing CHIS food security measurement and also expand it from 200 to 400% of the federal poverty line, because research shows that a third of food insecure households nationally earn above 200% of that line. CHIS is a unique California asset. Respondents in every county, surveys in six languages, with data collection running for more than 20 years. No existing survey in California matches that reach. This is targeted, it's evidence-based, and it ensures that California doesn't leave struggling families invisible simply because they earn a few dollars above an outdated cutoff. This is evidence-based policymaking and action. I will now pass it back to Assemblymember Stefani.

If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position only.

Kelly Brooks on behalf of the County of Santa Clara here in support.

and also Giving a Me Too on behalf of Californians Against Waste in support.

Lizzie Guansona here on behalf of Stop Waste, City and County of San Francisco, Napa County, and Marin County all in support.

Keshav Kumar on behalf of the California Academy of Nutrition Dietetics in strong support.

Good afternoon Chair and Members Jonathan Muñoz on behalf of First Five Los Angeles in support and we thank the author for her work.

Thank you, Chair, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the on-time caucus of this committee. Thank you. Thank you first to the committee staff for their thoughtful analysis. I'm here today to present AB 1949, which will expand access to acupuncture for Medi-Cal patients, ensuring more Californians can receive safe, effective pain management. Currently, Medi-Cal patients are restricted to two visits per month across a variety of outpatient services, forcing them to make hard choices between needed treatments. These limitations create barriers to timely care and disrupt continuity of treatment for patients. AB 1949 addresses this problem by treating acupuncture as its own benefit, allowing patients to access up to 24 acupuncture visits per year. Acupuncture is an evidence-based and cost-effective treatment for managing chronic pain that can reduce dependency on opioids and other costly treatments. This bill will improve patient health outcomes while maintaining responsible use of state resources. With me today in support, I have Grace Yingli from the American Association of Chinese Medicine Acupuncture and Dr. Chow from Northeast Medical Services.

Good afternoon, Chair Weber Pearson and the Senate Health Committee members. My name is Grace Yingli. I'm a licensed acupuncturist with over 30-year practice in San Jose. I'm also the president of American Association of Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture, AACMA, one of the main sponsors of AB1949. First, I want to thank Assemblymember Alex Lee for his leadership on this important issue. Acupuncture is a safe, evidence-based, and a cost-effective treatment that helps patients manage chronic pain and other health conditions while reducing reliance on opioids. and the costly medical interventions. Under current medical policy, acupuncture is limited to a shared cap of just two visits per month across multiple therapies. This restriction is clinically inadequate and often prevents patients from receiving meaningful care. Coverage may exist on paper, but access is limited in practice. More importantly, acupuncture is a dose dependent therapy. Meaningful and lasting results require treatment at an appropriate frequency, typically at least twice per week during the initial phase of care. When treatments are far apart, the therapeutic benefit is reduced. This is an access issue, not an utilization issue. Limiting access to non-drug therapies can increase reliance on medications and lead to higher healthcare costs. AB 1949 provides a balanced solution by allowing providers to develop treatment plans based on clinical needs rather than arbitrary visit limits. I respectfully urge your support for AB 1949. Thank you.

AB 1949. NAMS serves thousands of patients across the San Francisco Bay Area and the majority covers by Medi-Cal. Our patients are living with chronic pain, cancer-related symptoms, neuropathy, and arthritis, and other complex conditions that do not resolve within a single visit. Acupuncture, it is a core part of the whole person care we provide, and we see it works. A patient experienced real improvements in pain, functions, sleep, and quality of life. Many reduce their reliance on medications, but acupuncture works as a course of treatments, not a one-time fix. When coverage is interrupted, the progress stalls, symptoms returns, and continuity breaks down. So that's the gap of AB 1949 closes. By guarantee up to 24 visits per year without a burden, some utilization management, while preserving the pathway for additional medical necessary visits, this bill aligns a coverage with how care actually works. For our patients, this is not about visit counts. It's about equity access to safe, evidence-informed, and non-pharmacological cares. It is about allowing people to manage chronic conditions, stay active, and care for their families and living with dignity. So NAM is committed to integrated patient-centered care. AB 1949 supports that mission directly. And on behalf of Northeast Medical Services and the patients we serve every day, I respectfully urge you, yes, vote on AB 1949. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to speak and support, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. My name is Lin Yang, former president of CAC, a sponsor of SB 944, in strong support. Thank you so much. Christine Smith of Texas, California in support. Jin Zhao Xia, local acupuncturist. I strong support. Good afternoon. My name is Zhao Chen. I'm the member of AACMA. I support 1949 AP. Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. My name is Frank Zhang. I'm acupuncturist. I'm an AMC member. I'm supported AB 1949. Matt McCormick, representing Northeast Medical Services in support, also expressing support for Petaluma Health Centers. Thank you. My name is Xiaoxing. I strongly support AB 1949. I'm from Northeast Medical Service in Great Health Medicine Department. Thank you. My name is Carissa Chan. I'm a local acupuncturist. I strongly support AB 1949. Thank you. Hi, my name is Xin Zhang. I'm a local acupuncture practitioner. I strongly support AB 1949. Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, important treatment for people with HIV. Thank you for supporting AB1949. Thank you. Hi, my name is Fiyi. I'm a retired state employee for 33 years and I have personally experienced a lot of obvious, well I would say medical issues, like as we know we suffer a lot of chronic pains throughout our work so my personal experience was very marking was the last time they came into basic to our office campus and providing us a free exam or free treatments and I also have a lot of great feedback from my colleagues and they really appreciate this. Thank you. Are you in support? Yes. Thank you. I'm supporting, yes. Thank you. Seeing no for the members of the audience that would like to speak, is there anyone here that would like to speak and lead opposition to this bill? Seeing no one, is there anyone in the audience that would like to register their opposition? If so, come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Menjivar. As a member, I know this service in particular seems to always be on the chopping block when there's budget negotiations. I appreciate that there are members looking to ensure that that doesn't happen moving forward. I'm a true believer of this service, having been a recipient of it. And when we talk about our Medi-Cal funding and how it's ballooning so much, it's because we don't invest in preventative. effective, less expensive treatment, and I think this is one of them. So I want to thank you for the energy for coming up and sharing this technique that is really important, so thank you for that. Okay, seeing no further comments, I want to thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. It's an interesting thing to try to restrict two visits per month for a year when we know that people may need more in a shorter period of time. So I really want to thank you for keeping the total number of the year correct, but just allowing for more flexibility for people can actually get on the proper treatment regimen. So with that, you may close. Well, thank you to the Chair and the Senators. I do appreciate what Senator Menjivar did bring up, that it is unfortunate that acupuncture is continually on the chopping block when it comes to the May government revises for Medi-Cal. I think it is really important that we have a culturally competent health care system that of course also serves the diversity of people But also as diversity of medical true medical practice as well Acupuncture is one of those things that is deeply associated with the Chinese and East Asian cultures And it is a shame that is one of those things that keeps getting Cut in the budgets and stuff so this is one of those important things that we make sure that medical patients have a cost-effective Non-opioid based pain management system and that sure is that we're so fast I vote when the time comes Thank you. All right, we will now move to file item number four, AB 1910 by Assemblymember Borner. And you may begin when you're ready. Good afternoon, Senators. AB 1910. My postpartum pelvic floor health bill is a Tasha B. Special, aimed at increasing visibility and education on the health of our pelvic floor. And I wanted to be sure that I accepted committee amendments. One in three people who have given birth will suffer from postpartum pelvic floor health disorders in their lifetime. There are people every day dealing with life-altering functional problems that could have been avoided with preventative postpartum pelvic floor care. We should not only support new parents before they give birth, but throughout their postpartum journey. AB 1910 addresses this gap by adding information advising individuals to discuss any pelvic floor concerns with their health care provider. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. If there's anyone that would like to speak as lead witness and support, this is your time to come forward. Seeing none, if there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, if there's anyone that would like to register lead opposition, this is your time to come forward. Or if anyone who would just want to register opposition, come to the microphone, state your name and your organization and your position. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the committee. Really want to thank you so much, Assemblymember. I know this is one of your passions, being here, And so, you know, I think that as we're educating, we also need to make sure that the information that we're putting out there is actual factual and evidence based by the things that we have here in the United States. And so I appreciate your willingness to kind of pivot a little bit as we continue to get data from the pilot stay that you authored previously. And with that, I invite you to close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. All right. Once again, I would invite any members of the Health Committee to come down. We are flying through these bills. I see our next author is here. File item 7, AB 2011, Assemblymember Hart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the committee staff and the chair for their work on this bill, and I'll be accepting the committee amendments. These amendments clarify that annual review requirements and ensure the Department of Insurance is providing guidance for health plans compliance. I'm pleased to present AB 2011, a bill to codify existing federal mental health parity standards into state law. Mental health and substance use disorders affect millions of Californians and are growing health challenge Last year the Trump administration recklessly stopped enforcing federal protections that require insurers provide equal access to mental health and substance use disorder care as they do with physical medicine Due to this order, access to care is at risk for many, and the state should take the lead in preserving protections. Federal regulations require that health plans must collect data and conduct comparative analysis to demonstrate the treatment limitations are not more restrictive than those applied to medical or surgical benefits. These are limitations that are non-quantitative, like requirements for prior authorization. California has continued enforcing these regulations through the Department of Assurance and Department of Managed Health Care, but the state's authority to do so could be revoked if federal rules are ultimately rescinded or weakened. AB 2011 enshrines protections in state law so state regulators can continue to enforce parity requirements as they currently are no matter what changes occur at the federal level, especially during this administration. Many states like Colorado, Washington, Maryland, and Virginia have taken similar steps to prevent the Trump administration from undermining important health access using the federal protections as the gold standard. This bill does not expand covered benefits, create any new mandates, or impose any new duties on regulators. At a time when our state is working to expand behavioral health, AB 2011 ensures that the promise of equal access becomes a reality for Californians. Speaking in support of the bill is Lauren Finke with the Kennedy Forum and Miguel Bastidis from the California Department of Insurance. Thank you. You all will have a combined total of five minutes for your presentation. Good afternoon, Sharon members. AB 2011 is a simple, common-sense bill codifying federal rules into state law to preserve Californians' existing mental health and substance use disorder protection and regulators' ability to enforce them. It simply codifies the 2024 federal rules into California law and ensures Californians don't lose access to care if protections are ruled back by the federal government. Parity has been a federal law since 2008, but enforcement has been inconsistent. The biggest barriers we continue to see are not about coverage on paper, but how plans operate in reality. So prior authorization barriers, overly restrictive medical necessity criteria, inadequate provider networks, for example. The 2024 rules were a major step forward because they finally gave regulators clear enforceable standards and data-driven tools to actually measure compliance. With growing uncertainty around federal enforcement, those gains are at risk. AB 2011 simply codifies those federal standards into California law, preserving the authority of DMHC and CDI to enforce parity and ensures those protections remain in place regardless of what happens at the federal level. It doesn't change the rules. It makes sure we don't lose them. The bill does not create new mandates or expand benefits. Plans are already required to comply with these standards today. This is about maintaining the status quo and ensuring continuity for patients and regulators alike. AB 2011 ensures parity is real, enforceable, and protected for Californians regardless of federal changes or cuts to California Department of Insurance. Here under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, proud co-sponsor of the bill, I'd like to thank Assemblymember Hart for his leadership and authoring this important query for regulatory guidance to ensure mental health and substance use disorder care parity. The NPA 2024 rules provided that guidance. The federal government updated NPA regulations in 2024, responding to both congressional action and widespread deficiencies in insurer compliance. The 2024 NPA rule provided much-needed clarity and was created under the extensive public rulemaking process. Clear standards provided by the rule enable the Department to more effectively determine whether insurers are restricting access to mental health and substance use disorder services compared to medical and surgical care. Despite NPEA being in effect since 2014 and 2023, not a single insurer comparative analysis reviewed by the department met the requirements on first submission. Many of the comparative analyses we reviewed were missing key information needed to evaluate them properly. Without this information, we cannot determine whether insurers are applying NQTLs in compliance with NPEA. Clarifying these requirements will help the department ensure that insurers apply NQTLs correctly and consistently with the law. California has a proud history of leadership in codifying federal standards to protect consumers from instability and inconsistency at the federal level. This legislation simply codifies what is already good law. On behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. If there's anyone else that would like to register their support for this bill, please come to the microphone, state your name, your organization, and your position. Good afternoon. I'm the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support of Proud Co-Sponsors. Vanessa Kahina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians. Malik Bynum with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in support. Thank you. Christine Smith, Health Access California in support. Good afternoon, Tyve Rindy, California Psychological Association in support. Thank you. Tim Madden representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Programs and Professionals in support. support seeing no one else I would like to register their support if there's anyone that would like to speak as in lead opposition witness to this bill this is your time to come forward and you will have a combined total of five minutes for your presentation Good afternoon, Chair and members. Olga Shiloh here on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans, respectfully in opposition to AB 2011. We appreciate the author's office and the committee for the ongoing engagement and discussions on this bill, and we share the legislature's commitment to mental health parity and ensuring meaningful access to mental health and substance use disorder services. Helplins already are required to cover medically necessary behavioral health treatment on par with medical and surgical care 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 month, I think the federal government announced that it plans to issue a new proposed rule by December 30th of this year Despite this, the mental health parity laws, including the ACA requirements, the 2013 federal rules enacted by the Obama administration, along with additional state protections such as SB 855, do remain in effect. Moving forward at the state level with premature legislative action while the federal framework is in flux, risks locking California into requirements that may soon change or be invalidated, creating conflicting obligations and unnecessary disruption. Efforts to advance parity laws at the state level should be held off until federal rules are shored up. There's outside of plan controls. This bill would hold plans accountable for those external challenges, diverting resources toward administrative compliance rather than patient care. Madam Chair and members, Stephanie Watkins, on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Company, first and foremost, we'd like to thank the author and the sponsor we've asked the bill in print. In the interest of time, I'd like to echo many of my colleagues' comments and underscore our shared goal of ensuring timely access to medically necessary mental health and substance use and seeks to incorporate the federal 2024 Mental Health Parity and Addition Equity Act into California law, while key legal issues remain unsettled. rule, while the federal department considers whether to revise or rescind them. We think this is a key element to really consider as we look forward as we move forward with this issue. As my colleague mentioned, we do expect new rules to be issued as early as December, and we imagine that those are with the goal of addressing the current litigation that has now been paused while this is being reconsidered. So for those reasons, we would just ask the legislature to consider holding off on incorporating this into California law until we see that revision. And then we'll have an opportunity at that point to engage in a bigger and broader conversation based on the new federal rules, as well as how to incorporate them into California's law. So for those reasons, we are opposed to that. Thank you. Thank you. If there's anyone else that would like to register their opposition, seeing no one else that would like to register their opposition, I will bring it back to committee if anyone has any questions or comments. Vice Chair Valladares. Thank you to the sponsors, to the Department of Insurance. Are we essentially legislating because there's a gap in the law or because there's concerns that we may lose a lawsuit? Sorry, I don't know if this one. This is in response to preventative kind of proactive approach to ensure that we maintain these protections in place if there is a rollback. These rules remain in effect, whether the pause or the order to pause is in effect or not, is they remain in effect until they're repealed. And we've got those, whatever the federal government comes out with, and provide guidance based on that in response to that. So to the opposition, do you read it similarly? the right to continue to enforce I think as was mentioned that wouldn be repealed even if a new rule was issued So if the new rules come out and just either the 2013 rule that currently in order or the 2024, I mean, certainly that would be in question. The litigation, we feel strongly, really speaks to the issue that into California law. We think those issues still remain. And so for right now, we think it makes more sense for the state to wait till December and see what causing this in the self-insured market. So you would have differing standards. And so, I mean, I think as a general rule, when there's out right now. Thank you. So to the author, I understand what you're trying to accomplish. And I'm not necessarily in disagreement, especially when it comes to mental health services that, that about the implementation costs. And right now, especially is we're having a major budget fight over how we find dollars that have major and most likely premiums in this issue through. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no further comments. I want to thank you very much for mental health is very critical, and I think we are having these discussions now on a yearly basis because we realize that we do need to put more folks. some concerns about this actually going through the litigation process right now and the confusion around the 2024, given, you know, this current situation. But I do, I do understand the concerns. I hope that you will continue to have conversations with the opposition. You know, I'm not sure if there will be any agreement that's able to be made. With the amendments that we have here today, I will be supporting it in committee. I can't guarantee that I would continue to support it on the floor if it were to make it there because of some of the concerns that were addressed today. But we'll be supporting it to help it move out of this committee. And with that, you may close. Well, I just appreciate the dialogue. And this is a very complex area, but it's really an important area for our constituents. And we had a meeting yesterday evening to talk with the opposition. Their description of the complexity of the situation is really an attempt to codify the status quo, but it is a challenge to do that in the actively litigated space. So we're going to continue to work together and try and find a way to protect Californians who are seeing it. We'll move on that. I'm going to once again put out a plea for any members of the Health Committee to come down. We are on AB 2706 by Assemblymember Soria. and would also like to put a call out to Assemblymember Carrillo if you would like to present your bill today. AB 2706 is a collaborative effort between the Department of Public Health and Industry to reform California's cannery law to be easier to comply with and ensuring and packing of food susceptible to botulism contamination. While this law was an important step in protecting Californians from foodborne pathogens 100 years ago, Modernization Act, a more comprehensive federal law with similar definitions but more consistent requirements that ensures operations in different states meet the same standards, consistent requirements, and costs for food processors in the state. This has penalized those operating in our state and discourages new investments in food processing facilities, a streamlined approach to food safety that is in harmony with federal standards and current industry practices. This will put California's packing industries on an even footing. In support is Louis Brown on behalf of the California Dairies Inc. Thank you. You have a total of five minutes for your presentation. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the community, family, owners. And we recently made the decision to invest in California and built the first milk processing facility that this state has seen in over 20 years. And it is state of the art, bringing in technology from all over the world to manufacture shelf-stable milk. And what we found after we made that investment that we were subject to the 1925 Cannery Law. And notwithstanding the experts that we had helping design and build our plant, we found that we were also subject to a law that created duplication and excessive costs, to which had we built our plant outside of the state, we would not have been involved in the Canary Law. So we engaged in a conversation with the administration. We engaged in a conversation with your committee last year as well as the Assembly and have now worked our way through to the language that you see in this bill today. It reduces duplication. It cuts red tape. It does not penalize those that want to invest in California and at the same time protects consumer health. And we're excited to be part of that. We're appreciative of the efforts of the administration to get us here, and with that, we ask for an aye vote. Thank you. If there's anyone else in the audience that would like to register their support, please come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Katie Davey, Executive Director of the Dairy Institute of California, here in support. Thank you. Jim Lights on behalf of Baldwin Richardson Foods, a fairly new food ingredient manufacturer established in Riverside, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else, if there's anyone that would like to speak and lead opposition, this is your time to come to the table. Seeing none, if anyone would like to register their opposition, this is your time to come to the microphone. State your name, your organization, and your position. Seeing none, I will bring it back to Senator Grove. Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Actually Tony Atkins was helping me with this because the facility you're talking about is in my district and they produce whole milk, 2% milk, 1% milk, and other milk products. And when they went to change a line over to invest in the state of California to produce shelf stable milk, they came in contact with this 1925 cannery law which was for sardines and stuff in the Bay Area. it was crazy and I do want to applaud the governor we don't agree on a lot of things but he actually got dr. Pan to engage in this process they sent a crew out to make sure that we didn't lose that facility and the investments that were put in California and I think the author for bringing it forward to fix it so that and I'm glad that the administration had you expand it because it was just specifically for this but I did get a text that say that you were going to expand it and to make sure that no other dairy facilities or facilities like this for food production would have to do the duplicative issues and just the monitoring from the 1925 law would have been extraordinarily expensive when you're already producing milk products as is so thank you for bringing it forward and and and miss a former pro Tim Atkins has toured that facility as well and she said you could eat off the floors thank you thank you thank you Speaking of quorum, if there's any members of the health committee, Senate Health Committee, that would like to come down to O Street Room to Assemblymember Carrillo, if you would like for your bill to be heard today, recommend that you come to O Street Room 1200. Author here, file item 8, AB 2041 by Assemblymember Carrillo. You may begin when you are ready. Excuse me, AB 645, establish a requirement for public safety agencies to train 911 dispatchers on how to provide callers with pre-arrival. Viewed upon this life-saving work to help Californians help their family members, their friends, and their neighbors when they are experiencing a critical public health need. Here to report their status of compliance to their local EMS agency by January 31, 2027. The enemy to testify is Sean Sullivan. Madam Chair, thank you, members. I'll be brief knowing, excuse me, that this is the last item for you guys. As Assemblymember said, the statement would actually just be personal. Three years ago, my good friend, who's a high school basketball coach, collapsed after practice before the local fire department and EMS crew arrived. He recovered. He is alive today and well and would not be here for your high vote. Thank you. If there's anyone else that would like to register their support for this bill, this is your time to come forward, state your name, your organization, none. If there's anyone who would like to register their opposition to this bill, please come forward, state your name, your position at this time on it. I would invite you to close. Well, now that I caught my breath, thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for your patience. Appreciate it, and I respectfully ask for an eye vote. Thank you. I am now once again calling for any member of the Senate Health Committee to come down to O Street, Room 1200. We have heard. um