Bills: HB47, HB1552, HB1686, HB1953, HB2151, HB2355, HB2582, HB2697, HB2895, HB3073, HB3418, HB47

Keywords: sexual assault, victim rights, forensic examination, medical care, trauma-informed care, crime victims compensation, evidence retention, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, digital services, reporting requirements, children's protection, sex offender registration, indecent assault, educator-student relationship, criminal justice, legislation, crime victims, compensation fund, information disclosure

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Transcript Highlights:

• Further, the- legislatures should reject laws that are based on misinformation.

Bills: HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HB799, HB 1135, HJR15, HJR16, HB36, HB75, HB76, HB166, HJR15, HJR16

Keywords: family violence, global positioning monitoring system, victim resources, electronic monitoring, protective orders, magistrate, criminal procedure, probable cause, written findings, law enforcement, bail bonds, bail fund, charitable bail fund, nonprofit bail organization, public funds, local government spending, political subdivision, county, city, taxpayer lawsuit

Transcript Highlights:

• Rejection our SPA member can go into this is it's not grade level.
• If you maybe give us a little more on how and why those were rejected.
• Themes you've seen in the rejected materials lanes 14 or so.
• So we're not even trying to really reject them.
• Rejected list have been rejected because they can't even meet the TEEX, so.

Bills: SB451, SB762, SB1490, SB1262, SB1459, SB1750, SB1962, SB2252, SB2253, SB2365

Keywords: instructional materials, public schools, Education Code, adoption, rejected materials, local funds, open educational resources, Texas Education Code, school districts, open enrollment charter schools, funding restrictions, environmental regulation, business compliance, local authority, economic development, state preemption, local control, open education resources, SB 762, Texas public schools

Transcript Highlights:

• and you add a material to the rejected list, would the school just have to drop?
• You know, going back to kind of what you've seen with Mr. of the materials you've rejected.
• Themes you've seen in the rejected materials lanes 14 or so.
• Rejected list is what I'm essentially trying to say. So we call them in and we say, hey.
• or put anyone, everyone on this. rejected list have been rejected because they can't even meet the TEEX

Bills: SB451, SB762, SB1490, SB1262, SB1459, SB1750, SB1962, SB2252, SB2253, SB2365

Keywords: instructional materials, public schools, Education Code, adoption, rejected materials, local funds, open educational resources, Texas Education Code, school districts, open enrollment charter schools, funding restrictions, environmental regulation, business compliance, local authority, economic development, state preemption, local control, open education resources, SB 762, Texas public schools

Transcript Highlights:

• We urge the Legislature to please reject this proposal and keep community voices alive. ...reject this
• I also urge you to reject the May Revision cuts to community-based behavioral health services. ...reject
• She added that Proposition 35 does not prohibit a tax on MCOs outside of Proposition 35, and that the
• We urge your rejection. Thank you. We urge your rejection. Thank you.
• We urge rejection of the asset test.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 35 does not prohibit a tax on MCOs outside of Proposition 35, and as I just mentioned, we
• We urge your rejection. Thank you.
• We urge your rejection. Thank you.
• We urge your rejection. Thank you.
• We urge your rejection. Thank you. We urge your rejection. Thank you.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held a May Revision hearing covering several health-related budget proposals and broader concerns about the state’s budget structure. The Chair opened by praising some May Revision changes, such as added health IT funding, county administration support tied to Medi-Cal changes, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some lawfully present immigrants, and additional support for Covered California subsidies, while criticizing proposed increases in Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other reductions affecting counties, mobile crisis units, workforce incentives, and physician shortages. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the state’s budget condition remains weak despite progress on the structural deficit, and the Department of Finance said the May Revision uses a mix of reductions, reforms, revenue proposals, and fund shifts to cut out-year deficits. The committee first heard Department of State Hospitals proposals, including adjustments to county bed billing authority, contract exemption language for online clinical/pharmacy subscriptions, reversion of unspent funds, a revised Metro Central Utility Plant replacement project, electronic health record implementation, and workforce development funded partly through Behavioral Health Services Act resources. DSH also described savings and realignments in incompetent-to-stand-trial and conditional release programs, including extending the independent placement panel program and shifting funds to support additional bed capacity and a mental health rehab center. Members asked about the use of BHSA funds for workforce programs, and the department said the proposal would replace General Fund support with BHSA reimbursements. The Emergency Medical Services Authority proposed funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for enterprise system development, and the Department of Managed Health Care proposed modernization of its complaint system and claims-settlement data system to improve oversight and comply with AB 3275. The largest discussion centered on the administration’s BHSA spending plan under Proposition 1, including state-directed prevention, workforce, and other uses, plus General Fund offsets for existing programs. The LAO questioned whether some proposed offsets fit Proposition 1’s non-supplant and eligible-use requirements, while the administration argued the uses were consistent with the measure and that the state-directed share can be adjusted annually. The Commission for Behavioral Health’s proposals drew the most public and member concern. The administration proposed cutting the commission’s Innovation Partnership Fund from $20 million to $10 million and reducing the Community Advocacy Program by $6.7 million, while redirecting BHSA dollars to other state purposes and direct services. Commissioners, advocates, and several members argued the cuts would weaken community voice, reduce support for underserved populations, and disrupt grants already in process; they also objected to using BHSA funds to backfill General Fund commitments. Public commenters, including youth, disability, behavioral health, LGBTQ, tribal, veteran, immigrant, and community-based organization representatives, overwhelmingly opposed the cuts and urged preservation of prevention, advocacy, mobile crisis, and innovation funding. No votes or final actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• To pay for that, the state would delay or reject $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, a mix of rejecting
• To pay for that, the state would delay or reject $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, a mix of rejecting
• To pay for that, the state would delay or reject $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, a mix of rejecting
• Turning to page 10, we recommend rejecting most of the Proposition 98 one-time proposals.
• 98 to $10 million Proposition 98.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Proposition 35 requires the state to seek federal approval to continue a Proposition 35 tax on MCOs on
• outside of Proposition 35.
• of Proposition 35.
• We continue to urge the Legislature to reject this two-tiered Medi-Cal system and to reject state budget
• Also here for Proposition 56.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee first heard May Revision items for child support, child care, and related human services. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the LAO said raised no concerns. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a shift in how federal and Proposition 64 funding reductions would be absorbed, a 2.01% COLA, disaster-related child care infrastructure grants, an increase in in-contract administrative support costs for alternative payment agencies, reversion of prospective-pay implementation funding after a federal rule change, a one-time allocation to cover the first quarter of Cost of Care Plus payments in the next fiscal year, reappropriation for existing infrastructure grant closeout work, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The department also outlined trailer bill language on a single rate structure, site safety and emergency procedures, CalWORKs child care data sharing, and child care oversight. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more justification for shifting reductions from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment Program, noting that CAP reductions affect more slots and that General Child Care has had significant unspent funds. It supported removing prospective-pay funding, but recommended rejecting the administrative cost shift to a percentage-based rate because it could create future General Fund pressure. It also suggested the Legislature review alignment between the disaster grants and the child care infrastructure program. Senators and members pressed the administration on why the budget would reduce child care slots and COLA percentages while the state still has waitlists and unspent funds, and questioned the need for early funding of Cost of Care Plus payments and the move from a flat administrative amount to a percentage. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, county offices, and infrastructure partners, urged full COLA funding, preservation of child care slots, support for prospective pay, and continued investment in child care access and facilities. After a short recess, the committee moved to Part B on health and heard the Department of State Hospitals. DSH presented a May Revision budget of $3.2 billion and described proposals for a central utility plant replacement at Metropolitan State Hospital, an electronic health record implementation, reduced county bed billing authority due to phased-in LPS bed capacity, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal shifting some costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds, including support for an additional psychiatric training cohort at Napa. The department also outlined IST-related savings and a trailer bill to remove the sunset on the independent placement panel program.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am against this proposition.
• I am asking kindly that you reject this proposition and keep it going. Thank you. Hello, everyone.
• Please, I oppose and reject that budget cut.
• There was a very lengthy, great discussion last night on Proposition 35 and Proposition 56 implementation
• The point being that Proposition 35 and Proposition 56 really should be looked at together.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held an informational hearing on the Governor’s May Revision, focusing first on the Commission on Behavioral Health, then EMSA, and then the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). The Department of Finance said the state faces a third consecutive deficit and that the May Revision includes difficult trade-offs, including proposed eliminations or reversions of some behavioral health and public health funds. The LAO echoed concern about the structural deficit and said it was still awaiting some budget details before offering a full analysis. For the Commission on Behavioral Health, Finance proposed eliminating $20 million in Mental Health Wellness Act funds, arguing the money would help offset General Fund costs and noting future Proposition 1 innovation funding. The commission strongly opposed the cut, saying it would eliminate or delay launch-ready grants for early childhood supports, full-service partnerships, and peer respite, and would eventually end ongoing grant programming. Several advocates and commissioners testified that the funds support underserved communities and that Proposition 1 is not a substitute for the existing programs. The chair asked Finance to look for alternatives, but no vote was taken. EMSA presented mostly technical budget adjustments: increased authority for the California Poison Control System, a correction to EMSIS funding, and a reappropriation for enterprise services and data management. CDPH then reviewed a broader set of May Revision proposals, including reversions from the California Reducing Disparities Project, workforce development, STD prevention, hepatitis C prevention, hospice, and extreme heat funding, as well as a new generative AI pilot for health facility survey reporting. Members raised concerns about cuts to CRDP and gender health equity programs, especially because many grants are mid-contract and serve underserved communities; CDPH said the reversions were part of solving the deficit and that CRDP had been successful, while also clarifying that abortion.ca.gov would not be eliminated. Public comment was overwhelmingly opposed to the CRDP and related cuts, with many speakers describing the programs as life-saving and cost-effective. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will begin with Issue 1 on the Proposition 98 overview.
• We also think the Proposition 98 reserve deposit is prudent.
• set aside to cover those Proposition 98 estimates.
• We'd like to urge you to reject the $3.9 billion settle-up creation, reject the 2% state preschool fund
• We'd like to urge you to reject the $3.9 billion settle up creation, reject the 2% state preschool fund

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard the Governor’s May Revision proposals for TK-12 education, beginning with a Proposition 98 overview from the Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Finance said the May Revision increases the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee by about $6.4 billion relative to the Governor’s January budget across the three-year window, with higher guarantees in each year, continued full payment of the outstanding settle-up obligation in 2024-25, and a reduced $3.9 billion settle-up amount in 2025-26. Finance also described larger mandatory and discretionary deposits into the Proposition 98 reserve, ending with an estimated $10.3 billion reserve balance. The LAO said the overall estimates were reasonable, but urged the state to fully fund the guarantee and use other budget tools, including reserves, to manage volatility rather than delay settle-up payments. Members questioned the remaining settle-up amount, the risk of revenue volatility, and possible alternatives such as advance payments or other reserve strategies. The second panel covered Department of Education proposals and trailer bill language. Finance outlined additional state operations funding and positions for CDE, along with trailer bill changes affecting community schools, preschool, literacy, special education, charter accountability, teacher-related programs, and other technical cleanups. The LAO supported the overall structure of the package but recommended changes to several items, including rejecting some additional one-time community schools, literacy, math, multilingual screener, and inclusive college proposals, while supporting the ongoing LCFF and special education increases and raising concerns about the paid pregnancy disability leave proposal’s cost and implementation complexity. CDE supported the special education increase, community schools, literacy and math investments, homelessness funding, and the paid pregnancy leave proposal, while asking for more funding for county office support, clearer homelessness definitions, and continued preschool parity. Members also asked about immigrant student supports, community schools reporting, and the rationale and cost estimate for the paid pregnancy leave proposal, which Finance estimated at $218 million annually. The final panel addressed the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Finance proposed additional legal staffing for SB 848 implementation and educator misconduct caseloads, a fee increase for clear credential renewals from $100 to $125, a $5 million one-time Proposition 98 investment to build a transcript review platform, $2 million ongoing for transcript review staffing, and $30 million one-time for the statewide residency technical assistance center. The LAO had no concerns about the legal staffing, supported the transcript review platform if the fee increase and ongoing staffing were adopted, and recommended rejecting the residency technical assistance center expansion because existing funding runs through 2029. The Commission explained that the misconduct workload has grown over several years, that AI would assist but not replace human review in transcript matching, and that the residency technical assistance center helps recruit and retain teachers and support rural districts. Public commenters largely supported special education, discretionary block grants, community schools, literacy investments, homelessness funding, and teacher credentialing alternatives, while some urged rejection of the settle-up proposal and preschool COLA reduction.

Transcript Highlights:

• Grateful for the rejection of the proposed IHSS cost shift.
• Grateful for the rejection of the proposed IHS cost shift.
• operated preschool into Proposition 98.
• Schwarzenegger took it out of the Proposition 98 guarantee.
• We appreciate the rejection of APS.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee heard AB 109, the Budget Act of 2026, and related discussion of the legislative budget agreement. Committee staff and the Department of Finance described a two-year balanced plan with about $253 billion in General Fund spending, roughly $5.5 billion in higher assumed revenues than the May Revision, and about $36.5 billion in combined reserves. They said the package preserves or expands funding for schools and community colleges, child care, IHSS, Medi-Cal-related county administration, housing and homelessness programs, public hospitals, courthouse construction, and some criminal justice and prison-closure savings, while delaying or modifying several prior health care reductions and some Medi-Cal changes. Much of the member discussion focused on Medi-Cal, H.R. 1, and the impact on low-income and immigrant Californians. Several Democrats argued the budget protects vulnerable residents by delaying some cuts, funding county eligibility work, indigent care, public hospitals, and food banks, and rejecting the Governor’s IHSS cuts and asset-limit proposal. Republicans criticized the budget for assuming future revenues, relying on new taxes, and not doing enough to address the structural deficit or improve accountability. Members also raised concerns and support around homelessness funding, Prop. 36, judgeships and courthouse funding, transit and GGRF allocations, local journalism, Caltrans fleet spending, and a proposed “fair share” revenue measure that was not yet before the committee. Public testimony was largely supportive of the budget’s health and human services provisions, especially the rejection of IHSS cuts and the asset-limit proposal, and the inclusion of funding for child care, sickle cell centers, domestic violence services, trauma recovery centers, distressed hospitals, county eligibility work, and transit programs. Some witnesses representing hospitals and health plans cautioned about the effects of moving certain Medi-Cal populations to fee-for-service and about proposed tax changes affecting health care providers. The chair said revenue trailer bills were still being finalized and would likely come back later in the week; the committee then moved to public comment, with the chair limiting speakers to about one minute each.

Transcript Highlights:

• To pay for that, the state would delay or reject $1.6 billion in ongoing spending, a mix of rejecting
• We recommend rejecting the proposal at this time.
• We would recommend rejecting this proposal.
• 98 to 10 million Proposition 98.
• 98 to 15 million in one-time funding and then 7 million proposite ongoing Proposition 98 to $5 million

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We still have both GGRF and Proposition 4 to We still have both GGRF and Proposition 4 to work the details
• He reiterated concerns about Proposition 35 funding and said public safety in Proposition 36 could be
• On behalf of Nourish California, we support the rejection and appreciate your support of the rejection
• On behalf of Nourish California, we support the rejection and appreciate your support of the rejection
• We're also in support of your IHSS rejections.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee heard opening remarks on the 2025 Budget Act, which will be amended into AB 101 and SB 101 for floor consideration. Committee leaders described the budget as a difficult compromise shaped by a $12 billion deficit, federal funding uncertainty, wildfire impacts, and rising out-year costs, while emphasizing a balance between compassion and fiscal responsibility. Each budget subcommittee chair then summarized major actions in their areas, including health care, human services, education, climate and transportation, housing and state administration, public safety, and oversight/transparency. Key policy items included delaying or narrowing some of the Governor’s proposed cuts, especially in Medi-Cal and other safety-net programs; preserving funding for dental care, women’s health, family planning, hospice, long-term care, IHSS, and services for undocumented Californians; and maintaining or expanding child care, foster care, food banks, and CalWORKs-related supports. Education actions included additional Proposition 98 settle-up, reduced deferrals, support for TK-12, teacher recruitment, literacy, mental health, preschool slots, and restored funding for UC and CSU. Other major items included housing and homelessness investments, wildfire and disaster response funding, transit loans and greenhouse gas reduction fund support, Proposition 36 and VOCA-related public safety funding, and oversight measures on federal impacts and state efficiency. Department of Finance and Legislative Analyst staff said the package makes some of the same savings moves as the May Revision but relies more on internal borrowing and fewer reductions, leaving a smaller reserve than the administration’s plan but still maintaining roughly $11 billion in the rainy day fund. Members from both parties largely supported the package while raising concerns about long-term sustainability, Medi-Cal costs, reserve use, and the need for future revenue and program review. The committee adopted the subcommittee actions by roll call, 18-6, with the roll held open for absent members and additional comments continuing after the vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• So first, in terms of how Proposition 35 works, Proposition 35 is around a tax on health plans called
• Okay, I hate to align this with Proposition 56 because people are very frustrated with how Proposition
• Is the way Proposition 56 worked.
• So Proposition 56 is separate from Proposition 35, but yes, Proposition 56 would result in lower revenue
• We were included last year, but it was rejected because of Proposition 35, so we're hoping that the legislature

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So first, in terms of how Proposition 35 works, Proposition 35 is around a tax on health plans called
• Is there anything in the proposition...
• So Proposition 56 is separate from Proposition 35, but yes, Proposition 56 would result in lower revenue
• We were included last year, but it was rejected because of Proposition 35, so we're hoping that the Legislature
• We encourage you to reject this cut.

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:

• In addition, there are a number of Governor's proposals that are rejected, and while they are...
• Provided by Proposition 98, so I would like to ask you to address that.
• California supports the rejection and appreciates your support of the rejection of the trigger language
• We appreciate your decision to reject the proposed CRDP budget cuts. budget cuts.
• We would like to thank you for your recommendation and rejection of the CRDP budget cuts.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I am against this proposition. I am asking kindly you to reject this proposition and keep on going.
• Please, I oppose and reject that budget cut.
• I'm here to urge you to reject the cut to CRDP.
• Last night on Proposition 35 and Proposition 56 implementation, that's relevant to this department as
• An action taken with respect to Proposition 56 may impact what you can do under Proposition 35.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We ought to reject this budget. We ought to do our work.
• One way to kill a proposition is simply not to fund it.
• So we are funding Proposition 36. So we are funding Proposition 36.
• Stop playing games with Proposition 98.
• And Republicans are rejecting. 30 seconds.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly convened, established a quorum after a roll call, observed a moment of silence for the fatal B-52 crash at Edwards Air Force Base, and proceeded with routine procedural business, including re-referrals of numerous Senate bills to different committees and several rule suspensions to allow bills to be heard or moved. Assembly Member DeMaio attempted to amend and then return AB 109 to the Senate to add health care premium reductions, but the motions were ruled out of order and his request to suspend the rules failed on a 13-45 vote. The main floor action was on AB 109, the 2026-27 state budget. Assembly Member Gabriel presented the budget as balancing fiscal responsibility with protections for health care, schools, housing, wildfire prevention, and the safety net, while opponents argued it raised costs, underfunded education and public safety, and relied on gimmicks. Supporters emphasized investments in hospitals, Medi-Cal, IHSS, child care, food banks, housing, and reserves, and repeatedly defended the budget’s approach to Proposition 36 funding and prison closures. After extensive debate, the Assembly voted to concur in the Senate amendments to AB 109, and the bill was immediately transmitted to the Governor. Later, the Assembly took up SCR 89 on diversity, equity, and inclusion. Members from several caucuses spoke in support, arguing DEI is central to equal opportunity, civil rights, and California’s identity, and warning against federal efforts to roll back such programs. Assembly Member DeMaio spoke in opposition, saying DEI treats people differently based on immutable characteristics. The transcript ends during that debate, with the resolution still under consideration.