Transcript Highlights:

• The Fair Plan never had any control as far as an insured has to leave the Fair Plan and go somewhere
• Plan implement that?
• As you heard from the Fair Plan earlier this year, the rates the plan is charging are inadequate.
• Around the Fair Plan policy.
• We built that in the Fair Plan.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held its first outcomes review oversight hearing on the residential fair plan clearinghouse program created by AB 3012. Chair and members focused on whether the program is actually helping depopulate the California Fair Plan and move policyholders back to the voluntary market. The Fair Plan and Department of Insurance testified that the program exists as a platform for admitted and, in some cases, non-admitted insurers to review Fair Plan policies and make offers through the broker of record, but they acknowledged limited participation and limited results. CDI said it has received no formal complaints specific to the clearinghouse, but identified obstacles including only 11 participating residential insurers, the broker-of-record requirement, compensation and appointment issues, and the lack of direct consumer contact. CDI said about 730 residential risks have moved to voluntary market coverage through the program from June 2021 through April 30, 2025, and opt-outs are under 1%. Committee members pressed witnesses on the program’s opacity, the lack of data on offers made versus policies actually moved, and whether the clearinghouse is functioning as intended. CDI and the Fair Plan said they do not have data on how many offers have been made, only on cancellations that are self-reported and marked as clearinghouse-related. Members also raised regional growth in Fair Plan enrollment, especially on the Central Coast, and concerns about underinsurance when policyholders move back to the regular market. CDI recommended more mandatory reporting, broader broker education, possible direct offers to policyholders after a period of time, and changes to commission and appointment rules to reduce barriers to insurer participation. The second panel of industry witnesses generally agreed the clearinghouse is not a stand-alone solution and said its effectiveness depends on a healthier admitted market and actuarially sound Fair Plan rates. Independent agents and brokers, admitted-market insurers, and surplus lines representatives said the current system is constrained by low rate adequacy, limited insurer appetite for high-risk properties, operational friction, and misaligned incentives. Several witnesses suggested improvements such as better data sharing, clearer depopulation procedures, stronger broker education, and more flexible appointment or compensation rules. Some supported giving the program more time under the Sustainable Insurance Strategy, while others said the Legislature should consider whether to strengthen, modify, or potentially sunset the program if it continues to produce limited results. A public witness later reported that a new carrier had recently joined the clearinghouse and was working with brokers to bring in additional capacity.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES ARE GOING TO GO PLAN BY PLAN. I WON'T BE READING THE DATA FOR EACH PLAN.
• CARE PLAN.
• PLAN.
• PLAN.
• PLAN.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> positive for this plan. positive for this plan.
• um one of our smaller State patrol plan um one of our smaller plans, plans, plans, the<00:25:40.400>
• plan, and police and fire plan.
• plan.
• plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll cover assessment and rates, core issues for the Fair Plan, the evolution of the Fair Plan.
• the Fair Plan policyholders.
• , plan of operations.
• Is the Fair Plan more affordable? In certain geographic areas, the Fair Plan is more affordable.
• You cannot depopulate the Fair Plan when somebody can go to the Fair Plan, maintain the Fair Plan policy

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• ' Pension Plan, the Guaranteed Education Tuition Plan, the Higher Ed Supplemental Retirement Plan.
• the plan.
• the plan.
• Plan termination is essentially the ending of the plan. The retirement plan ceases to exist.
• plans.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved the June minutes by roll call vote, with 11 ayes and 6 excused. The chair then outlined meeting procedures and public comment rules before educational briefings began. Lisa Wan of the Office of the State Actuary gave the agency’s annual update, describing its staffing, clients, strategic plan, and performance measures. She noted the office is a small nonpartisan legislative agency that provides actuarial valuations, fiscal notes, policy analysis, and support for multiple retirement systems and boards, and said the office faces a heavy workload in 2025 because of the demographic experience study and other recurring projects. Jacob White provided the annual LEOFF 2 Board update, covering the board’s structure, plan demographics, funded status, contribution rates, and several policy topics under review. Those topics included a Seattle overtime/pension spiking review, catastrophic disability survivor benefits, retiree return-to-work employer contributions, and the change in interest credited to member accounts. He said the board would continue coordinating with DRS and report back through interim updates. Erin Gutierrez presented background for the LEOFF 1 study, explaining plan benefits, medical and death benefits, historic funding, and federal tax qualification issues. She compared Substitute House Bill 2034 and Substitute Senate Bill 5085, describing 2034 as a restatement/termination approach and 5085 as a merger into a Legacy Retirement Plan, both requiring IRS determination letters. Committee members asked questions about LEOFF 1 medical costs, funding sources, and tax implications, and public commenters urged the committee to protect tax qualification, consider a recurring COLA for PERS and TERS 1, and address pension policy concerns. The meeting ended with adjournment and notice of a 30-minute break before executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• These measures allow for the comparison of Florida's health plans with other health plans and other state
• plans that operated state wide.
• The comprehensive care plan.
• There is only one plan that has a child welfare specialty product, but there are 7 plans that have an
• and dental plans to achieve and maintain high performance. dental plans to achieve and maintain high

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll cover assessments and rates, core issues for the Fair Plan, and the evolution of the Fair Plan.
• the Fair Plan policyholders.
• the Fair Plan rates and where we’ve been, just going back to 2020, because I wasn’t at the Fair Plan
• , plan of operations.
• You cannot depopulate the Fair Plan when somebody can go to the Fair Plan policy, maintain the Fair Plan

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focusing on its rapid growth, financial stability, rate adequacy, and role in the homeowners insurance market. Committee members described the Fair Plan as increasingly functioning as a “safety net” rather than a true insurer of last resort, while Fair Plan representatives said the plan was created by statute, is privately funded by member insurers, and is now taking on more business because of non-renewals and limited availability in the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan offers residential and commercial coverage, but not a full HO-3 homeowners policy, and said expanding into that product would require major new staffing, vendor, and claims infrastructure. A major topic was pricing and assessments. Fair Plan officials said their rates have historically lagged their projected costs, especially because reinsurance costs were not fully recoverable in rates until recently. They reviewed recent filings, including a 2023 filing that was reduced from an estimated 80% need to a 35.8% request after working with the Department of Insurance. They also discussed the plan’s reinsurance tower, a new catastrophe bond, and the $1 billion assessment triggered by the 2025 Los Angeles fires after losses exceeded available capital. They said AB 226 helped secure a $600 million line of credit to reduce assessment risk, and they thanked lawmakers for supporting that measure. Members raised constituent concerns about coverage limits, underinsurance, and misinformation from agents. Fair Plan officials said they do not deny applicants because their homes exceed the plan’s $3.3 million limit; instead, policyholders can combine Fair Plan coverage with excess insurance. They said broker training and webinars are being expanded to address misunderstandings, and they noted that raising the cap would depend on achieving actuarially sound rates and sufficient financial capacity. Members also asked about smoke claims from the 2025 fires; the Fair Plan said it has paid covered smoke claims under California law, reviewed closed claims, and removed the “sight and smell” language from its policy form after litigation and CDI action. Public commenters from the insurance industry, builders, agriculture, and nonprofit service providers largely urged faster depopulation of the Fair Plan, more adequate rates, and reforms to the clearinghouse process. Some warned that the Fair Plan is now competing with the admitted market because it can be cheaper in some areas, while others said the plan is still essential because the private market is not serving high-risk or specialized properties. The hearing ended without a vote or formal action, but committee members and Fair Plan representatives agreed to continue working on rate, transparency, and depopulation issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• So what's the plan?
• So what's the plan?
• So from a plan perspective, I mean from a long-term plan perspective, I mean, from a long-term plan perspective
• the plan design?
• You're jumping from the basic plan to the high deductible plan.

Bills: SB2160

Committee: House Industry, Business and Labor

Summary: The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute. The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• , a Plan A and a Plan B.
• So if you're in Social Security as a town in this plan, you're most likely in Plan B because Plan B has
• So if you're in Social Security as a town in this plan, you're most likely in Plan B because Plan B has
• Plan A has a slight decrease, yes, and Plan B has a slight increase.
• the requirements of your DB plan, your defined benefit plan, the basic plan, the law is set to allow

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard no public comment. The committee then reviewed actuarial valuation reports and, for most systems, accompanying experience studies. The actuaries reported generally favorable investment and demographic experience across the systems, with funded ratios improving and employer contribution rates declining in several plans. They also explained the role of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, especially the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected assumptions and costs. For the Louisiana Clerk of Court Retirement Relief Fund, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer rate of 14.75%. For the District Attorney’s Retirement System, it adopted the valuation and experience study and recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 3.00%. For the Firefighters’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 25.5%, and noted that DROP balances left on deposit will earn the market rate of return of 11.7%. The committee also adopted the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System valuation for both Plan A and Plan B, recognizing fiscal 2027 minimum rates of 20.75% and 8.75%, respectively. It adopted the Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 26.5%, a DROP crediting rate of 7.4%, and a policy range up to 29.35% for future contributions. For the Registrars of Voters Employees’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 0%, and noted a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund for fiscal 2026. Finally, it adopted the Sheriff’s Pension and Relief Fund valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 7.75%. All motions passed without objection, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• : a Plan A and a Plan B.
• Plan A is detailed on page one. Active membership in this plan did see a slight decrease.
• So if you're in Social Security as a town in this plan, you're most likely in Plan B because Plan B has
• Plan A has a slight decrease, yes, and Plan B has a slight increase.
• the requirements of your DB plan, your defined benefit plan, the basic plan, the law is set to allow

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard actuarial valuation reports and experience studies for several retirement systems. Presenters repeatedly noted strong investment performance, payroll growth, and generally improving funded ratios across the systems, with most plans showing lower minimum recommended employer contribution rates for fiscal 2027. The committee also received explanations of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, including the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected costs and assumptions. For the Clerk of Court, District Attorney, Firefighters, Municipal Employees (Plans A and B), Municipal Police, Registrars of Voters, and Sheriffs systems, the committee reviewed 2025 actuarial evaluations and, where applicable, 2025 experience studies. The actuarial reviewers reported no significant deficiencies and said the valuations were completed in accordance with applicable actuarial standards, generally accepted actuarial practice, and state statutes. The experience studies generally led to modest assumption changes, with some cost decreases from salary, mortality, withdrawal, and asset experience, while some plans saw offsetting increases from retirement or post-DROP behavior. The committee asked a brief question about mortality assumptions and was told the studies use separate male/female and safety/non-safety tables adjusted for Louisiana experience. The committee adopted each valuation and experience study without objection. Key fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer contribution rates included 14.75% for Clerk of Court, 3.0% for District Attorneys, 25.5% for Firefighters, 20.75% for MERS Plan A, 8.75% for MERS Plan B, 26.5% for Municipal Police, 0% for Registrars of Voters with a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund, and 7.75% for Sheriffs. The committee also recognized DROP crediting rates where applicable and adjourned after completing all agenda items.

Transcript Highlights:

• planning manager from Pierce County Planning and Public Works; Carol Helen, director of planning and
• The plan was a very heavy lift.
• comprehensive plan.
• We had always planned to go through an EIS process on our comprehensive plan, so we had planned to do
• Now the term variance has a long-established meaning in planning law and planning practice.

Committee: Senate Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• System Plan 1 and the Teachers' Retirement System Plan 1. the select committee at the May meeting on
• system plan one and the teacher's retirement system plan one. and ...the Teachers' Retirement System
• The Plans 1 UAAL is the unfunded liability for past service in the Plans 1.
• And the Plans 1 UAAL is... ...that have been earned to date by members of the plan.
• discussing pension plan health.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy met on June 17, 2025, with Vice Chair Fitzgibbon presiding initially in Chair Benke’s absence. The committee approved the May minutes and then held its annual election of officers. Representative Travis Couture was elected chair, Senator Steve Conway was elected vice chair, and the executive committee seats were filled by Member Yistramski for actives, Bev Hermanson for retirees, and Anthony Murrietta for employers. The committee also recognized Pat Thompson for her long service and upcoming departure from the committee. Staff then briefed the committee on Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5357, which changed pension funding by increasing the assumed long-term investment return from 7% to 7.25%, lowering normal cost contribution rates, suspending Plan 1 UAAL contributions for four years, and extending the amortization period for Plan 1 benefit improvements from 10 to 15 years. The Office of the State Actuary explained that the bill produces significant short-term budget savings but increases the risk of higher contribution rates later if investment experience underperforms. Members asked about the suspension of Plan 1 UAAL rates and the implications for future rates and funding risk. The committee also received an introduction to the required study of proposed LEOFF 1 merger and termination legislation under the 2025-27 operating budget proviso, covering Substitute Senate Bill 5085 and Substitute House Bill 2034. Staff outlined the study plan, including legal, tax, actuarial, administrative, and pension policy analysis, with input expected from the Attorney General’s Office, Ice Miller LLP, the Office of the State Actuary, DRS, the State Investment Board, and the State Treasurer. Members discussed the unusual issue of an overfunded plan and possible IRS implications. Public testimony was split, with some speakers supporting a merger as a way to create room for a Plan 1 COLA and others opposing any diversion of LEOFF 1 assets, citing legal, tax, and member-rights concerns. The meeting adjourned before the scheduled executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• plans. Did I miss anything?
• planning manager from Pierce County Planning and Public Works; Carol Helen, director of planning and
• plan.
• We had always planned to go through an EIS process on our comprehensive plan, so we had planned to do
• law and planning practice.

Summary: The Senate Local Government Committee held a work session to review implementation of recent housing, planning, and climate-related laws. Department of Commerce staff outlined the 2023 climate planning requirements under the Growth Management Act, including the climate resiliency sub-element for all jurisdictions and greenhouse gas reduction requirements for larger ones. They described Commerce’s guidance, the use of the University of Washington’s Resilient Washington tool and FEMA hazard mitigation resources, attention to overburdened communities through the Department of Health’s Environmental Health Disparities Map, and the climate policy explorer. Members asked about specific climate impacts, flood mapping, evacuation language access, and how environmental justice and local stakeholder input are incorporated. Commerce also said climate planning grants are being drawn down from Climate Commitment Act funding and should be sufficient through the 2029 deadline for remaining Puget Sound jurisdictions. Local government witnesses described their comprehensive plan updates and implementation challenges. Pierce County said its adopted plan was a major multi-year effort that retracted some urban growth area acreage, concentrated growth near transit, expanded middle housing and streamlined permitting, and created capacity for far more housing than its 32,000-unit growth target. County staff emphasized the difficulty of balancing rural protection, urban growth, transportation constraints, climate goals, and limited transit funding, and asked for more technical assistance. Redmond said its update leveraged light rail investments, added transit-oriented development, middle housing, planned actions, and climate resilience policies, but also required costly mid-course corrections from changing state laws and agency guidance. Redmond urged more regulatory stability, clearer statutes, and streamlined certification and accountability processes. Snohomish County said it is now in early implementation, focusing on translating adopted policy into regulations, aligning with new state housing and parking laws, and coordinating across departments and with cities; it stressed the need for clearer comp plan language, realistic timelines, and more staffing and coordination support. The committee also heard from the Washington chapter of the American Planning Association about inconsistencies in recent planning laws. APA identified three issues: the use of the undefined term “guidelines” in the design review statute, the use of “variance” in a middle housing/design review context where APA said “departure” would better fit the intended flexibility, and the lack of a cross-reference or definition for “administrative design review” in the subdivision statute. APA said these ambiguities can create confusion and delay in permit processing and offered to work with the legislature on technical fixes. Senators asked whether local codes already use “departure” and whether the proposed changes would conflict with current law; APA responded that many cities already use departure provisions and that the goal is to align the RCW with existing planning practice. The meeting ended without any votes or formal action.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a high-deductible plan.
• plan, and employees starting to pay, single or family, for part of their medical plan.
• plan.
• It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are exempt, and it adds plans to already existing plans
• It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are exempt, and it adds plans to already existing plans

Committee: Joint Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:15:32.800><c> uh</c> their plan based on which plan uh their plan based on which plan uh provides
• /c><00:43:07.599><c> from</c><00:43:07.760><c> the</c><00:43:07.920><c> plans,</c> plan f plan plan filings
• from the plans, plan f plan plan filings from the plans, usually<00:43:08.640><c> in</c><00:43:08.800
• plan.
• plan.

Committee: House Health Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• That's kind of the Fair Plan.
• Plan has, theoretically.
• Do they have plans to do that? Because we don't have a plan to do that.
• Some have two because they have beach plans and wind plans.
• Some have two because they have beach plans and wind plans.

Committee: House Insurance

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, financial condition, depopulation efforts, and response to the January Southern California wildfires. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968 as an insurer of last resort, is a private not-for-profit association of admitted insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the voluntary market. They said the market has deteriorated so much that many consumers are now coming to the Fair Plan first, including in lower-wildfire-risk areas where the plan is sometimes cheaper than private-market options. Officials said the plan’s exposure has grown sharply, reaching about 575,000 policies and nearly $600 billion in exposure by the end of March, with especially fast growth in low-risk areas. They described the plan’s depopulation challenges, the clearinghouse process, and pending or recent policy expansions such as coverage for farmers, higher commercial coverage limits, and proposed bills affecting grace periods and manufactured-home replacement coverage. They also discussed rates, saying premiums have risen from about $1,839 in 2021 to about $2,800 in 2025, while average policy limits have increased to over $1 million, and that the plan is working with the Department of Insurance on a new dwelling filing to move toward actuarially sound rates. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January fires and the Fair Plan’s finances. Officials said the plan paid more than $2.9 billion in claims so far and expects total losses near $4 billion, with over 5,500 claims filed and more than half already closed. Because of the losses, the plan sought and received a $1 billion assessment from member insurers, the first such assessment in 30 years, and also described its reinsurance tower and the role of reinsurance in covering catastrophic losses. They said the plan is supporting AB 226, which would give it access to a line of credit and potential bond financing to reduce reliance on assessments. Members raised concerns about solvency, non-renewals, smoke-claim standards, and the growth of the plan in non-wildfire areas; public commenters from the building industry and insurance brokers said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market and urged stronger rates and depopulation tools.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could be another plan, too, like the LEOFF plan that would cover higher education police officers.
• HIRP plan.
• The retirement plan law required that all new employees be enrolled in the HIRP plan rather than PERS
• So it truly is a supplemental plan to the institutions' defined contribution plan.
• Open plans and plans where there's still a large portion of the population...

Committee: Joint Pension Funding Council

Transcript Highlights:

• That's kind of the Fair Plan.
• The Fair Plan now covers farmers. The Fair Plan now covers farmers and farms in general.
• Plan has, theoretically.
• Do they have plans to do that? Because we don't have a plan to do that.
• Some have two because they have beach plans and wind plans.

Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is a high deductible plan.
• plan.
• It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are—so it adds plans to already existing plans in the Century
• It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are—so it adds plans to already existing plans in the Century
• Retirement plans under PERS.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• That is the plan. Thank you, sir. The plan could change.
• When you say the plan, the plan can always change, but no plans for change. No plans for change.
• .regulate this plan.
• plans.
• This is not a self-funded health plan. Self-funded... self-funded health plan.

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance