Transcript Highlights:

• And what happens is when the federal government decides to make a federal tax change, as they did in
• So it is... administration so when the first Trump administration put through their tax bill they for
• This is a federal deduction, not a state deduction, so they are reducing their money from their federal
• The employee side is administrative, and so the administration plans to issue administrative guidance
• With the federal administration aggressively implementing its own fiscal priorities, states like Massachusetts

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of federal tax changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OB3) on Massachusetts. Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz said the bill would phase in selected corporate tax changes over time, avoid a $442 million FY26 revenue hit, preserve the current-year budget, and add a few related changes, including expanding the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, delaying large federal tax changes over $20 million by one year, limiting opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, adjusting DFML contributions to match IRS guidance, and aligning casino slot-winnings reporting thresholds with federal law. Committee members questioned the administration about why it chose phased conformity rather than full decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill does not pass, the purpose of the pass-through entity change, opportunity zones, and the slot-machine threshold and family leave provisions. Public testimony was sharply divided. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and Don Griswold of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities urged the committee to go further and permanently decouple from the five most costly OB3 corporate tax provisions, arguing that automatic conformity is fiscally risky, rewards investment outside Massachusetts, and has already caused or could cause large revenue losses. Labor and public-sector witnesses, including leaders from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, and building trades unions, also called for permanent decoupling, warning that the federal law will deepen state budget pressures, harm schools, health care, human services, and infrastructure, and shift costs onto workers and public programs. Several speakers said Massachusetts should not adopt federal corporate tax cuts that mainly benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. Other testimony focused on specific provisions. Unite Here Local 26 asked the committee to strike the casino slot-winnings threshold change from $1,200 to $2,000, saying the current limit helps identify problem gambling, creates an opportunity for intervention, and supports union jobs. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s phased approach, especially the research and experimental expense deduction, citing the importance of certainty for business filers and Massachusetts’ strong R&D economy. Greater Boston Legal Services testified on the paid family and medical leave sections, explaining that the bill’s changes would align PFML payroll contributions with new IRS guidance and, if paired with administrative action, would be cost-neutral for workers and employers. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• On the elimination of Prop. 56 funding, at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying
• While I sadly expect this federal administration and Congress to attack providers of women's health and
• There is a new proposed rule from federal administrators involving provider taxes, which are a key source

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• It's a new federal clarification from this administration. Can you help me?
• In order to comply with both Proposition 35 and H.R. 1, the administration proposes to seek federal approval
• The administration does not see a path to obtaining federal approval for a tax on MCOs that is both compatible

Summary: The committee first heard May Revision child care and human services items. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the analyst supported. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a reduction in federal and Proposition 64 funding absorbed through a shift from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment program, a 2.01% child care COLA, disaster-related infrastructure grants, a new administrative support cost structure for Alternative Payment agencies, the removal of prospective pay funding after a federal rule change, a reappropriation for existing infrastructure grants, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended asking for more justification for shifting reductions to CAP, supported the COLA reduction but wanted consistency across programs, recommended removing prospective pay funding, opposed the administrative cost shift, and suggested further review of disaster grant alignment. Members pressed the administration on why more slots would be cut for the same savings, why the COLA was reduced, and whether the administrative percentage would grow over time. The administration said the changes were intended to avoid disrupting currently enrolled families, reflect point-in-time relinquishments and unspent funds, and stabilize contractor operations. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, and county representatives, urged full COLA funding, rejection of child care slot reductions, preservation of prospective pay, and continued investment in child care infrastructure and access. The subcommittee then recessed before moving to health items. In Part B, the Department of State Hospitals presented its May Revision proposals, including a central utility plant replacement project at Metropolitan State Hospital, funding for a continuum electronic health record system, reduced county bed billing authority to reflect phase-in of additional LPS beds, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscription services, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal to use Behavioral Health Services Act funds instead of General Fund for training programs. The department said the EHR would modernize records and improve continuity of care, and that the contract exemption would prevent delays in essential clinical information services. No votes were taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• H.R. 1 reduces the federal share for administrative costs from 50% to 25%.
• So the administration, the federal administration, took this money out of the general pot that helped
• So the administration, the federal administration took this money out of the general pot that helped
• Previous speakers also outlined the basics of how H.R. 1 shifts administrative costs from the federal
• Low-income families depend on are being taken by the federal administration to provide tax breaks to

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• The elimination of Prop 56 funding at a time when the federal administration and Congress is trying to
• With Congress and the federal administration proposing to defund Planned Parenthood nationwide, California
• While I sadly expect this federal administration and Congress to attack providers of women's health and
• There is a new proposed rule from federal administrators involving health provider taxes, which are a
• Why would we give up $300 million from the federal? From federal matching funds?

Transcript Highlights:

• At the federal level? At the federal level. You were not talking about state employees?
• No, this administration has the highest ethical standards, and anyone who's a federal employee will be
• this administration.
• We've seen the bloating of the federal government under the Biden administration.
• It's estimated In 2024 alone, executive branch bureaucrats in the Biden administration promulgated federal

Committee: Senate Senate Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the big things we do as a state is administer federal grants.
• So we estimate that the federal changes are going to reduce, when fully implemented, federal spend on
• But the administration has to then kind of figure out how to react.
• Specific issues with Trump, with federal policy, to attend to.
• But when you are planning to respond to federal action, you better make sure that the federal action

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• One of the big things we do as a state is administer federal grants.
• We estimate that the federal changes are going to reduce, when fully implemented, federal spend on health
• But the administration has to then kind of figure out how to react.
• Specific issues with Trump, with federal policy, to attend to.
• But when you are planning to respond to federal action, you better make sure that the federal action

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Doug Howe of the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and Evan Horowitz of Tufts on the fiscal effects of federal policy changes, especially the OB3 reconciliation law, federal shutdown risks, and Massachusetts budget planning. Howe outlined a framework of direct and indirect federal impacts on the state budget, capital program, and grant funding, emphasizing uncertainty around Medicaid, SNAP, LIHEAP, immigration, NIH funding, and federal tax changes. He said OB3 is expected to reduce federal health spending in Massachusetts by about $3 billion annually when fully implemented, with an estimated 250,000 to 300,000 people losing coverage, and could shift up to $400 million in annual SNAP costs to the state if Massachusetts’ error rate remains above the federal threshold. He also discussed the governor’s proposal to delay conformity with certain federal tax changes and to expand the pass-through entity tax to offset revenue losses. Members questioned the witnesses about SNAP error rates, unemployment insurance, the use of the stabilization fund, and whether the state should adopt a Maryland-style delay in implementing federal tax changes. Howe argued the stabilization fund should not be used to backfill permanent obligations, but could be used for temporary crises, and said the state should improve data-sharing and administrative systems so eligible residents do not lose MassHealth or other benefits because of paperwork barriers. He also said unemployment insurance remains a major problem and that a broader fix should include benefit, tax, and possibly state contributions. Horowitz took a more aggressive view on using reserves for urgent needs like SNAP, argued the state should harden its budget against volatility, and warned that Massachusetts is increasingly exposed to stock-market-driven revenue swings and to a possible income tax ballot question that could significantly reduce revenues. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the chair asked both witnesses for follow-up written recommendations, especially on system integration and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that there have been a lot of messages coming from the current administration at the federal
• Trump administration.
• But did we have a budget during the last Trump administration to sue him specifically or sue the federal
• The court ruled that the Trump administration had acted illegally and ordered the federal government
• And with this federal administration, we are not keeping these as two separate things, but really being

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• We recognize that the federal government may not choose to approve that tax because... ...the federal
• Businesses can deduct sales taxes from federal income, so this is the tax that the federal government
• the next administration.
• Office or the administration or the next administration, well, the administration, I guess, to come forward
• the federal share.

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review subcommittee heard four budget trailer bills: AB 110, AB 122, AB 125, and AB 177. AB 110 was described as a budget bill junior identifying budget-related legislation. AB 122 would extend sales tax to electronically delivered or remotely accessed prewritten software, extend and later limit business tax credits, reduce the annual LLC/LLP/LP tax for first-year businesses for three years, and impose a 100% tax on certain federal anti-weaponization fund settlements. AB 125 would renew the managed care organization (MCO) tax for three years beginning in 2027 to support Medi-Cal and targeted provider rate increases. AB 177 would require the Department of Finance to return by March 1, 2027 with options for assessing large employers for the Medi-Cal costs of employees enrolled in the program, including at least one employer-paid premium option for firms with 250 or more employees, and would appropriate $1,000 General Fund for implementation. Administration witnesses said AB 122 modernizes the tax system and helps create general fund revenue, while AB 125 is needed to preserve Medi-Cal financing and targeted rate increases under new federal constraints from H.R. 1 and to avoid a budget hole if the MCO tax expires. On AB 177, Finance said the bill is only a study and does not itself impose a tax, but would direct the administration to develop options for future consideration. Supportive members argued the package is part of a balanced approach to address the structural deficit, protect health care and other safety-net programs, and ensure large corporations pay more of their share. They also said AB 177 is a necessary step toward asking large employers to help cover public health care costs for workers who rely on Medi-Cal. Opponents, led by Vice Chair Niello and several other Republicans, argued the state does not have a revenue shortage but a spending problem, warning that the proposals would raise costs on consumers and businesses, discourage innovation, and expand taxes beyond their intended scope. They criticized AB 122 as potentially taxing labor-like services and limiting research and development credits, and said AB 125 would increase premiums for commercial enrollees and employers. On AB 177, they questioned the lack of definitions and specifics, saying the bill is too vague and could eventually burden employers, including hospitals and part-time workers, without clear standards. No votes were taken in the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and questions before public comment and later action.

Transcript Highlights:

• Turning to page seven for CalFresh financing changes, H.R. 1 reduces the federal share for administrative
• This is primarily driven by the updated administrative cost-sharing provision that reduces the federal
• Currently, the administration has stated that they plan to all. federally funded Medi-Cal populations
• So the administration, the federal administration, took this money out of the general pot that helped
• So the administration, the federal administration took this money out of the general pot that helped

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the issue as a major federal disruption that would reduce benefits and shift costs to the state, counties, hospitals, and other local systems. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center, each describing projected enrollment losses, higher state and county costs, and implementation challenges. The LAO outlined H.R. 1’s main changes: new and expanded work requirements, more frequent eligibility redeterminations, restrictions on certain non-citizen eligibility, and financing changes affecting provider taxes and federal matching rates. The LAO estimated that 1 to 2 million people could be disenrolled from Medi-Cal and more than 600,000 could lose CalFresh, with additional costs from reduced federal support and possible state and county administrative burdens. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget includes about $1.4 billion General Fund in 2026-27 to respond to H.R. 1, with larger out-year reductions in federal funds and projected Medi-Cal caseload losses of up to 2 million by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, while noting the state could choose policies that would reduce some of those losses. The Food Research and Action Center warned that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, worsen health outcomes, and strain local economies and emergency systems. Members questioned the witnesses about procedural disenrollments, regional variation, the overall growth in Medi-Cal spending, the future of the MCO tax, the CalFresh error rate, and the downstream effects on hospitals and county indigent care. Several senators argued that the federal law was driven by tax cuts for high-income earners and would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color. Administration witnesses said some impacts are still being analyzed, that counties and departments are working on implementation, and that the Legislature may need to use statute, reporting, and oversight tools as federal guidance develops. No votes or formal actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, there are federal requirements in order to receive Medicaid funds and federal dollars that
• federal requirements than some of our other federal authority options, such as state plan amendments
• We have to review the federal waiver requirement to understand which type of federal authority We are
• However, different with other federal authorities, they don't have a federally required or outlined in
• THEY DON'T HAVE A FEDERALLY REQUIRED OR OUTLINED   529 IN FEDERAL LAW A TIMELINE BY WHICH THEY

Summary: The Health Facilities Subcommittee met to receive implementation updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration on three bills passed in prior sessions. First, Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer reported on the transfer of the Children’s Medical Services managed care plan from the Department of Health to AHCA under HB 1085. He said the move was administrative only, with no change to enrollment, providers, services, or clinical eligibility functions, and that it was intended to create efficiencies by aligning procurement and shifting staff resources between agencies. Members then questioned AHCA about reports of reductions in private duty nursing and therapy services for medically fragile children, including concerns about appeals, provider credentialing, and whether families were losing services or being transitioned appropriately. AHCA said it was reviewing denials, monitoring the plan, and using contractual remedies while focusing on maintaining access for members. The committee also reviewed implementation of a bill creating permanent Medicaid eligibility for individuals with permanent disabilities. AHCA staff explained that the agency had submitted a federal 1115 waiver request after public comment and stakeholder meetings, but CMS had indicated it did not anticipate approving the requested authority. Members pressed AHCA on why the waiver was submitted later than the bill’s directive date and on whether the delay was avoidable. AHCA said the waiver was complex and required review, drafting, and public input, and noted that DCF already has a specialized unit to help with redeterminations while the agencies work on operational changes. The committee discussed the practical impact on families who struggle with annual eligibility renewals and the need for clearer communication and faster follow-up from the agency. Finally, AHCA presented on the home health aide program for medically fragile children and related Medicaid eligibility changes. The agency described the 2023 law that created a family caregiver provider type and the 2025 changes that increased the hourly rate, expanded hours, reduced training requirements, and removed caregiver earnings from Medicaid eligibility calculations, subject to federal approval. AHCA said it had completed state public comment, submitted the waiver amendment to CMS, and was awaiting federal action. Members raised concerns that some families may have enrolled or begun work before the eligibility fix was in place and may have lost benefits, especially in Broward County. AHCA said it would work with affected families and plans, review outreach through DCF and the health plans, and continue rulemaking, system updates, and provider training. The meeting ended with the chair noting that the committee had received the updates and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• During the first Trump administration, they used federal law enforcement forces to violently disperse
• . administrators. administrators.
• In fact, it's a federal crime for anyone in the U.S. military or any administrative employee of the federal
• This means that the current administration cannot justify sending federal forces to polling places by
• </c> But federal law is clear. But federal law is clear.

Committee: Senate Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Federal funds over 12 billion.
• changes that might come down as a result of um changes from the federal administration.
• Highway Administration.
• Go through the federal government and administrative process.
• Um, Within the reconciliation bill, uh leaves some question as far as with the federal administration

Committee: House Federal Funding Stabilization Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the new federal rule, we are expecting forthcoming federal guidance, which may help the administration
• administration.
• It's a federal, new federal clarification from this administration. Can you help me?
• In order to comply with both Proposition 35 and H.R. 1, the administration proposes to seek federal approval
• The administration does not see a path to obtaining federal approval for a tax on MCOs that is both compatible

Transcript Highlights:

• So the federal regulations are done in the Federal Register, and there's notices of rulemaking that EPA
• and other federal agencies have to go through.
• And so in the Based on links to the federal regulations.
• These are administrative updates only and are needed to keep Idaho in compliance with federal law.
• And then there are several terms defined in federal regulations, and we refer to those federal code sections

Committee: House Environment, Energy and Technology

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, more federal red tape.
• So under HR1 and various other federal actions, we know that the federal government is eliminating health
• So we can get this federal match.
• change in federal policy.
• administration under Trump.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 and related federal actions on Covered California, Medi-Cal, and immigrant access to care. The chair framed the discussion around three main issues: expected losses in marketplace coverage as enhanced federal premium subsidies expire, new federal work and renewal requirements that would add administrative burden to Medi-Cal, and the loss of eligibility for certain lawfully present immigrants. Covered California testified that H.R. 1 and new federal rules, combined with the end of enhanced premium tax credits, are driving higher premiums, lower new enrollment, and more cancellations, especially among middle-income, Latino, and Black enrollees. The agency said California’s $190 million state subsidy program is helping lower-income enrollees but cannot replace the lost federal assistance, and it noted that roughly 120,000 lawfully present immigrants in Covered California will lose federal tax credits in 2027. On Medi-Cal, the Department of Health Care Services said H.R. 1 will require work and community engagement verification, six-month renewals for certain adults, and other changes that the department expects will reduce enrollment substantially. DHCS estimated 233,000 members could lose coverage by June 2027 from the work requirement and 289,000 from six-month renewals, with losses rising much higher by 2028; it also said it is using automation, outreach, clinic navigators, coverage ambassadors, community health workers, and street medicine providers to reduce procedural disenrollments. The department described a two-phase outreach plan and said it is working with counties on implementation, while the Department of Finance said the Governor’s budget maintains $190 million for the state subsidy program and does not propose additional changes at this time. The LAO said its independent forecast is somewhat higher than the administration’s, estimating about 2.1 million fewer Medi-Cal enrollees by June 2028, and urged the Legislature to review county administrative workload and readiness. Public testimony and member comments focused on the human and fiscal consequences of coverage losses. A representative from the Sacramento Native American Health Center warned that reduced reimbursement and coverage losses would destabilize community health centers, increase uncompensated care, and worsen outcomes by pushing patients into emergency care. Members raised concerns about paperwork burdens, county capacity, outreach effectiveness, and whether the state should do more to preserve coverage, including possible modeling of additional H-CARF spending and support for middle-income consumers and immigrant enrollees. The hearing did not take any votes or formal actions, but it ended with public comment and continued discussion of implementation and budget options.

Transcript Highlights:

• Businesses can deduct sales taxes from federal income, so this is the tax that the federal government
• the next administration.
• the federal share.
• Under the federal government, California and other states are still able to claim federal dollars for
• Do we still get federal dollars?

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:

• Second, in a letter to Governor Newsom in September 2025, our federal oversight agency, the Administration
• we submit the package to the federal Administration for Community Living. ...before we submit the package
• to the federal Administration for Community Living.
• I think the concern from the counties is related to the non-federal share of the program's administration
• At a time when the administration has made commitments around mitigating harm in the face of federal

Transcript Highlights:

• Turning to page seven for CalFresh financing changes, H.R. 1 reduces the federal share for administrative
• This is primarily driven by the updated administrative cost-sharing provision that reduces the federal
• Currently, the administration has stated that they plan to all. federally funded Medi-Cal populations
• So the administration, the federal administration, took this money out of the general pot that helped
• Previous speakers also outlined the basics of how H.R. 1 shifts administrative costs from the federal

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on California’s safety net, focusing on Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The chair and vice chair framed the discussion around major federal changes to work requirements, eligibility redeterminations, immigrant eligibility, and financing rules, while noting the state’s own structural budget deficit and the need for a second hearing later in March on county and safety-net impacts. The first panel included the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, the UC Berkeley Labor Center, and the Food Research and Action Center. LAO and Finance described H.R. 1 as driving major enrollment losses and cost shifts. LAO estimated that Medi-Cal work requirements and six-month redeterminations could affect 3.5 million people, with 1 to 2 million potentially disenrolled, while CalFresh changes could subject more than 800,000 people to work requirements and cause over 600,000 to lose food assistance. They also highlighted new ineligibility for certain non-citizens, reduced federal matching for emergency Medi-Cal services, tighter provider tax rules, and higher state and county administrative costs for CalFresh. Finance said the governor’s budget reflects about $1.4 billion in new General Fund costs in 2026-27 and a $2.4 billion reduction in federal funds, with larger out-year impacts and up to 2 million Medi-Cal disenrollments by 2029-30. The UC Berkeley Labor Center projected up to 3 million Californians could lose full-scope Medi-Cal by 2028 when H.R. 1 is combined with state budget changes, though it said the state could limit losses by choosing not to apply some new requirements to state-funded populations and by keeping some immigrants in full-scope state-funded coverage. The Food Research and Action Center argued that CalFresh cuts and time limits would increase hunger, homelessness risk, and health costs, while also hurting local economies and increasing administrative burden. Committee members from both parties questioned the fiscal sustainability of Medi-Cal growth, the 11% CalFresh error rate and possible $2 billion penalty, county indigent care costs, and the effect of work requirements; several Democratic members argued the federal changes and state cuts would disproportionately harm low-income Californians, immigrants, and communities of color, while Republican members emphasized program growth, work incentives, and the need for budget restraint. No votes were taken in the portion provided.