AB 1068 would require the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) to convene a working group by July 1, 2026, to study and recommend best practices for evacuating and sheltering older adults and people with disabilities who live in long-term care facilities during emergencies. The bill specifically covers natural, technological, and manmade disasters, and it highlights mutual aid evacuations as one area for review. The working group must include several state agencies, including the California Department of Aging, Department of Rehabilitation, Emergency Medical Services Authority, Office of Emergency Services, Long-Term Care Ombudsman, Department of Public Health, and Department of Social Services, along with stakeholders such as facility operators, staff, residents, local government, foundations, and academic researchers.
The bill also requires CalHHS to submit its recommendations to the Governor and relevant legislative committees by July 1, 2027. That report must identify any statutory and regulatory changes needed to improve evacuation and sheltering for the affected population. The new section would be temporary and automatically repeal on January 1, 2030, indicating that the measure is intended to produce a time-limited policy review and implementation roadmap rather than create a permanent program.
AB 1068 would affect the Welfare and Institutions Code by adding Section 9114.5 to the Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act framework. It does not directly change licensing rules for long-term care facilities or emergency response law, but it could lead to future legislative or regulatory changes affecting skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and other long-term care settings. The bill also implicates state emergency management and aging-service agencies by formalizing interagency coordination on disaster preparedness for vulnerable residents.
The overall sentiment reflected in the vote history is strongly supportive. The bill advanced through multiple committees and floor consideration with unanimous or near-unanimous votes, and it was repeatedly recommended for consent calendar treatment, suggesting broad agreement that the issue is important and noncontroversial in principle. However, it was later placed on the suspense file, which suggests fiscal or policy concerns may still be under review despite the lack of recorded opposition.
The main point of contention appears to be less about the bill’s goal and more about implementation details and potential costs. Because the measure requires a multi-agency working group and a follow-up report identifying needed statutory and regulatory changes, lawmakers may be weighing whether the study process is sufficiently justified and whether any downstream mandates could create administrative or fiscal burdens for state agencies and long-term care providers. No specific opposition arguments are reflected in the available transcript material.
AB 1068 would add a temporary new section to the Welfare and Institutions Code directing CalHHS to coordinate an interagency working group on evacuation and sheltering for older adults and persons with disabilities in long-term care facilities. It would not immediately impose new operational standards on facilities, but it would create a formal state process that could lead to later statutory or regulatory changes affecting emergency planning, evacuation protocols, and sheltering arrangements for long-term care residents.
The bill appears to have broad bipartisan and committee support, as reflected by unanimous or near-unanimous votes at each recorded stage and repeated consent-calendar recommendations. The absence of recorded opposition suggests the policy objective is widely viewed as worthwhile, especially given the vulnerability of older adults and people with disabilities during disasters. Its later placement on the suspense file indicates that any remaining concerns are likely procedural, fiscal, or implementation-related rather than ideological.
The available record does not show direct policy opposition, but the likely areas of concern are administrative complexity, interagency coordination, and possible future costs arising from the report’s recommendations. Because the bill asks CalHHS to convene multiple state departments and stakeholders and to identify needed statutory and regulatory changes, some lawmakers may be cautious about the scope of the study and the potential for follow-on mandates. The suspense-file action suggests fiscal scrutiny may be the main unresolved issue.