An act to amend Section 1439.6 of, and to add Section 1429.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, and to amend Section 14126.029 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to public health.
AB 2135 would strengthen California’s rules governing facility-initiated transfers and discharges from long-term health care facilities, including skilled nursing and nursing facilities. The bill requires facilities to give residents at least 30 days’ written notice before a transfer or discharge, unless a statutory exception applies, and to obtain signed acknowledgment of the notice from the resident or representative and a facility staff member. It also requires translated notices for residents whose primary language is not English and accessible-format notices for residents who are blind or vision impaired, with attestation under penalty of perjury as to accuracy. In addition, facilities must include a resident’s primary language and sensory impairments in their minimum dataset and provide certain discharge-related documents and ombudsman notices within specified timeframes.
The bill also increases enforcement against facilities that improperly transfer, discharge, or refuse to readmit residents after an administrative hearing decision. It raises the daily penalty for noncompliance from $750 to $1,000 and increases the maximum aggregate penalty per hearing decision from $75,000 to $100,000. It further authorizes the State Department of Public Health to prohibit new admissions to a facility that fails to timely comply with a hearing decision, until the facility comes into compliance, the maximum penalties are collected, or the facility seeks judicial review. Penalty revenue would go to the General Fund and, upon appropriation, support long-term care quality improvements and administrative hearing costs.
The bill’s impact on state law is to expand both resident-notice protections and enforcement tools in the Health and Safety Code and Welfare and Institutions Code. It creates a new admission-prohibition authority for the State Department of Public Health, adds a new class B violation for certain notice failures, expands perjury exposure for false translation or accessibility attestations, and updates ombudsman notification requirements to allow electronic transmission and a 24-hour deadline for emergency transfers. It also makes conforming changes to the Medi-Cal long-term care hearing enforcement framework and states that no state reimbursement is required for the act.
General sentiment around the bill appears favorable. The only recorded vote provided was unanimous in committee, with 14 yeas and 0 nays on a do-pass-as-amended motion, indicating broad support at that stage. The bill was then re-referred to Appropriations, suggesting the policy direction was acceptable but fiscal review remained necessary.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s increased regulatory and financial burden on facilities, especially the higher daily penalties, the larger aggregate penalty cap, and the new authority to block admissions. Facilities may also object to the added documentation, translation, accessibility, and attestation requirements, while supporters are likely to emphasize resident due process, language access, ombudsman oversight, and stronger enforcement against unlawful transfers and discharges. Because the bill expands criminal and civil exposure and imposes a state-mandated local program, implementation and cost concerns may also be part of the debate.
AB 2135 amends Health and Safety Code Section 1439.6, adds Health and Safety Code Section 1429.5, and amends Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14126.029. It creates new notice, translation, accessibility, and ombudsman-notification requirements for facility-initiated transfers and discharges, adds a class B violation and $1,000 civil penalty for certain notice failures, expands perjury liability for false translation/accessibility attestations, and authorizes the State Department of Public Health to prohibit new admissions when a facility fails to comply with a hearing decision. The bill also increases Medi-Cal-related penalties for noncompliance with hearing decisions and directs collected penalties to the General Fund for specified long-term care purposes.
The available legislative history suggests generally positive sentiment toward the bill. The committee vote recorded in the materials was unanimous, 14-0, on a do-pass-as-amended motion, which indicates no visible opposition at that stage. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a resident-protection measure with enough support to advance.
Likely areas of contention are the bill’s enforcement escalation and compliance costs for long-term care facilities. Providers may object to the higher daily penalties, the increased aggregate cap, the new admission ban authority, and the expanded documentation and translation obligations, particularly where facilities must attest under penalty of perjury. Advocates for residents and ombudsmen are likely to support those provisions as necessary to prevent improper transfers and discharges, ensure language access, and improve accountability. Fiscal concerns may also arise because the bill is keyed fiscal and was re-referred to Appropriations.