Transcript Highlights:

• Importance of the actual actuarially sound rates: 30 years ago, the Legislature recognized that the Fair
• Actuarially sound rates is is... policy. We do cover renters, landlords, obviously owner occupied.
• Actuarially sound rates is is So, just at a really high level, right, actuarially sound rates are simple—although
• And if they are, then you have actuarially sound rates.
• If we had actuarially sound rates and could get actual or sound rates for a higher limit, we would be

Committee: House Insurance

Transcript Highlights:

• And then again, our rates are supposed to be actuarially sound.
• I know we've talked a little bit about actuarially sound rates and why we need them.
• On the actuarial soundness, it's kind of weird for us. As a builder, we buy this product.
• I mean, rates are not actuarially sound.
• I mean, rates are not actuarially sound.

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:

• </c><00:04:50.320><c> assumed</c> able to exceed their actuarial assumed able to exceed their actuarial
• they look at these actuary assumptions they look at these actuary assumptions mortality<01:10:13.040>
• </c> trend has been projected by the actuary trend has been projected by the actuary for<01:27:04.159
• And I know that sounds 300 300 days.
• </c> &gt;&gt; Uh the 1.71% was an actuary number. &gt;&gt; Uh the 1.71% was an actuary number.

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum call, the Pledge of Allegiance, a prayer, and approval of the prior meeting minutes. The first presentation was from Bo Craycraft of the Judicial Form Retirement System, who gave an update on investment performance, asset allocation, cash flow, and projected employer costs. He reported strong fiscal year 2025 investment results, with both the legislative and judicial retirement plans outperforming their actuarial assumed rates of return and benchmarks, driven largely by U.S. equity performance. He also noted the plans remained near their target asset allocation and continued to experience negative cash flow, though he said that was manageable in context of strong asset growth. Craycraft then discussed a recent experience study and actuarial assumption changes, especially a revised salary growth assumption and a higher cash balance interest credit rate. He said these changes increased projected employer costs, with contributions rising from about $700,000 to a projected $2 million in later years, though he expected the eventual 2025 valuation and investment gains to reduce that estimate. Members asked about mortality assumptions, the impact of the experience study on liabilities, and the sharp increase in the judicial plan’s projected employer cost. Craycraft explained that the increase was driven mainly by the updated assumptions and that no other major plan changes were involved. At the chair’s request, Craycraft also addressed the recent rise in Medicare Advantage premiums for the plan’s health coverage, saying the 2025 increase was largely tied to Part D changes and the Inflation Reduction Act and had been about 45%, but that future growth was expected to be under 5%. After his presentation, the committee moved to the Kentucky Public Pensions Authority update, where the next speaker began by saying the funds had exceeded actuarial assumed returns for the fiscal year.

Transcript Highlights:

• It sounds like we're slightly behind.
• It sounds like we're slightly behind. Have not done that at this point.
• We share it with both the actuarial consultant of this bill.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

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:

• And then again, our rates are supposed to be actuarially sound.
• The thought process was to give the Fair Plan actuarially sound rates to help minimize the possibility
• So I know we've talked a little bit about actuarially sound rates and why we need them.
• sound rate. to talk about our next dwelling filing to try to get to an actuarially sound rate.
• The other thing higher, I mean, rates are not actuarially sound.

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:

• to determine whether the applicant's actuarial balance is satisfactory.
• These residents deserve the state's independent review of the CCRC's actuarial reports to ensure sound
• financial compliance with national standardized actuarial requirements.
• These residents deserve the state's independent review of the CCRC's actuarial reports to ensure sound
• financial compliance with national standardized actuarial requirements.

Summary: The Senate Health and Long-Term Care Committee held a Friday morning hearing with several House bills and then took executive action on three measures. In executive session, the committee voted do pass on Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2242, Substitute House Bill 2152, and Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2168, sending the first two to Rules and the overdose-mapping bill to Ways and Means. The committee also waived the five-day notice rule for several bills on the agenda. Public hearings focused on hospital inspections, continuing care retirement communities, radiologic technologist supervision, music therapy licensure, nursing regulation, ambulance billing after motor vehicle accidents, and EMT recertification. Representative Macri presented HB 2577 to require hospital inspections at least every 18 months, allow limited pauses during emergencies, and clarify when CMS or accrediting-body surveys may substitute for state inspections; DOH supported the bill, citing JLARC recommendations, while many people signed in opposed. Macri also presented Second Substitute HB 2384, which would require actuarial analysis review for certain CCRCs; OIC supported the transparency goal, while CCRC representatives opposed the added cost, though residents and association witnesses argued the oversight would protect seniors and their life savings. Representative Engel’s HB 2113 drew strong support from radiology, hospital, and provider groups for allowing virtual direct supervision for IV contrast procedures and aligning state law with CMS practice. Representative Ryu’s HB 1187 would bar ambulance services from sending motor-vehicle-accident medical debt to collections for 120 days; she described a personal experience with an ambulance collection issue, and the hearing was closed after no testifiers appeared. Representative Reed’s HB 2363 would let music therapy applicants practice under supervision for up to six months while exam results are processed; music therapy witnesses said it would prevent workforce gaps. Representative Simmons’ HB 2339 would update nursing title and transcript requirements and allow the board to issue interim permits directly, with the Board of Nursing and ARNP groups calling it a technical cleanup. HB 2540 would extend EMT recertification intervals to six years for long-tenured EMTs, and firefighters supported it as an administrative simplification without changing training requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Importance of the actual actuarially sound rates: so 30 years ago, the Legislature recognized that the
• Actuarially sound rates is... policy. We do cover renters, landlords, obviously owner occupied.
• Actuarially sound rates is is So, just at a really high level, right: actuarially sound rates are simple—although
• And if they are, then you have actuarially sound rates.
• If we had actuarially sound rates and could get actual or sound rates for a higher limit, we would be

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:

• To make our TRS system actuarially sound. this bill.
• The mandatory definition of actuarial soundness is to be below 31 years, so we're just above that cusp
• , but we would not be actuarially sound based upon the estimated... that we have currently of the impact
• So, I'm not sure if the numbers are below in terms of actuarial soundness. Is that correct?
• It took us a long time to get the system to actuarial soundness.

Bills: HB2 , HB2

Committee: House Public Education

Keywords: public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, disaster preparedness, emergency management, flooding, mass fatality, mass casualty, fatality tracking, body recovery, autopsy, justice of the peace

Transcript Highlights:

• Today I spoke with the actuary at OSI and asked about premiums.
• I was told by the actuary that in 2021...
• It deprives them of their benefits, and that might sound like...
• But, as was mentioned, the metaphor of gambling is actuaries.
• Sound similar, so they're different things.

Bills: SB38 , SB17 , SB41 , SB264

Committee: Senate House Judiciary

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee heard extensive testimony on House Bill 99, a proposed reform of the Medical Malpractice Act. Representative Chandler said the bill is intended to address physician shortages, rising malpractice premiums, and litigation pressures by changing punitive damages rules, including a higher standard of proof, a requirement that punitive damages not be pleaded in the initial complaint, and limits tied to the type of provider. Supporters, including physicians, business leaders, and some patients, said the bill would help retain doctors, improve access to care, and create more predictable liability exposure. Several supporters also said current malpractice conditions are driving doctors out of the state and harming rural access to services. Opponents argued the bill would reduce patient recovery, create unequal treatment based on insurance status through the bill-versus-paid provision, and raise constitutional concerns involving equal protection, collateral source rules, and separation of powers. They also criticized the bill for not addressing other drivers of malpractice, such as hospital practices, prior authorization, staffing, and background checks for out-of-state doctors. Some witnesses urged amendments to protect the Patient Compensation Fund, ensure future medical expenses are covered, require minimum surcharge settings, and improve oversight of providers entering the state. Committee members questioned the sponsor and witnesses about whether the bill would actually lower premiums, whether it would improve access to care, and how it would affect hospitals, independent providers, and the Patient Compensation Fund. The sponsor said the bill was based on negotiations and comparisons with other states, and that it should help premiums over time. Members raised concerns about the fund’s solvency, the role of hospitals in the fund, and whether some provisions would survive legal challenge. No final vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the chair indicated amendments would be discussed later and the committee would continue the hearing the next day.

Transcript Highlights:

• soundness of the fund and to pay off our unfunded liabilities.
• valuation, which pointed out that the fund is actuarially sound.
• The period is 30 years; to be sound, you have to be under 31 years.
• We're actuarially sound, and actually, because of the funding that the legislature has provided for in
• The actuarial cost is reported by TRS to be $806 million, and their reported actuarial cost, of course

Bills: HB886 , HB1514 , HB2434 , HB2688 , HB2802 , HB3161 , HB3221 , HB4029 , HB4339 , HB4591 , HB4774 , HB4802 , HB4853 , HB5627 , SB1737

Committee: House Pensions, Investments & Financial Services

Keywords: retirement, supplemental payment, benefits, Employees Retirement System, eligible annuitants, legislation, annuity, service credit, Employees Retirement System of Texas, employee benefits, pension reform, public retirement systems, municipality pensions, firefighters, police officers, retirement age, DROP program, actuarial studies, pension benefits, municipal retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• It sounds like we're slightly behind. Have not done that at this point.
• We're deciding if it's an actuarial.
• We're deciding if it's an actuarial. ...of it, but that's not what we're deciding.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• It seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

Committee: Joint Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• You broke this down further with $250,000 for federal and state law conflicts, $500,000 for actuarial
• I'd like, if you can, to elaborate a little bit more on the actuarial study and what this study would
• The actuarial analysis really is to look at the Hawaiʻi data.
• </c><00:23:48.960><c> studies</c> to the experts that do actuarial studies to the experts that do actuarial
• </c> which I assume would, you know, sounds which I assume would, you know, sounds like<00:27:51.919>

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• So we're asking that it would be set at 3% above the actuarial rate.
• So can you talk to me about the actuarial note and the savings?
• sound.
• Sounds great. Who dictates who gets on the board?
• The actuarial note didn't really say, what is this doing to the cost?

Bills: HR70 , HR71 , HCR35 , HB31 , HB326 , HB1013 , HB1014 , HB1015 , HB1016 , HR65 , HR66 , HR67 , HR68 , HR69 , HCR33 , HCR34 , HB1006 , HB1007 , HB1008 , HB1010 , HB1011 , SB2 , SB13 , SB24 , SB28 , SB40 , SB47 , SB48 , SB70 , SB79 , SB80 , SB109 , SB127 , SB139 , SB154 , SB181 , SB199 , SB200 , SB208 , SB277 , SB317 , SB336 , SB349 , SB357 , HR15 , HR20 , HCR14 , HB51 , HB58 , HB69 , HB82 , HB93 , HB143 , HB166 , HB199 , HB201 , HB202 , HB218 , HB222 , HB223 , HB224 , HB231 , HB235 , HB246 , HB338 , HB349 , HB352 , HB379 , HB405 , HB429 , HB535 , HB547 , HB577 , HB588 , HB626 , HB636 , HB652 , HB653 , HB669 , HB688 , HB691 , HB721 , HB738 , HB749 , HB806 , HB843 , HB851 , HB857 , HB861 , HB889 , HB904 , HB907 , HB908 , HB929 , HB955 , HB1009 , HB952 , HB8 , HB9 , HB10 , HB15 , HB16 , HB17 , HB18 , HB19 , HB22 , HB33 , HB34 , HB35 , HB44 , HB46 , HB47 , HB48 , HB61 , HB101 , HB126 , HB135 , HB142 , HB164 , HB185 , HB215 , HB226 , HB232 , HB233 , HB242 , HB284 , HB292 , HB297 , HB301 , HB334 , HB436 , HB468 , HB548 , HB571 , HB582 , HB593 , HB594 , HB609 , HB613 , HB712 , HB722 , HB732 , HB746 , HB827 , HB845 , HB848 , HB921 , HB923 , HB951 , HB953 , HB999 , HB53 , HB57 , HB64 , HB102 , HB106 , HB111 , HB137 , HB152 , HB155 , HB177 , HB238 , HB256 , HB258 , HB337 , HB359 , HB363 , HB386 , HB434 , HB546 , HB557 , HB584 , HB661 , HB697 , HB726 , HB727 , HB747 , HB756 , HB758 , HB759 , HB765 , HB767 , HB825 , HB858 , HB930 , HB941 , HB957 , HB964 , HB868 , HB119 , HB140 , HB739 , HB842 , HB875 , HB919 , HB52 , HB228 , HB289 , HB735 , HB796 , HB901 , HB193 , HB400 , HB570 , HB733

Keywords: Northside High School, basketball, state championship, sportsmanship, athletic recognition, commendation, criminal justice, community contributions, Bridget A. Dinvaut, law enforcement, tax delinquency, property sale, rehabilitation, Louisiana State Law Institute, legislation, retirement, police benefits, disability, municipality, Social Security

Transcript Highlights:

• The intent is sound.
• The intent is sound.
• The Employment Security Department, known as ESD, provides an actuarial report each year.
• The actuarial rate proposal in this bill also reflects a recommendation from J.
• The actuarial rate proposal in this bill also reflects a recommendation from J.

Bills: SB6256 , SB6275 , SB5868 , SB5954

Committee: Senate Ways & Means

Keywords: tax exemptions, affordable housing, nonprofit, unoccupied property, housing policy, community reinvestment, economic development, local investment, financial assistance, SB 5868, superior court, judge, judgeship, judicial vacancy, court administration, Skagit County, Yakima County, RCW 2.08.061, Washington courts, county judges

Transcript Highlights:

• How does that sound?
• </c> of re rehiring the recommended actuaries of re rehiring the recommended actuaries actuaries<00:10
• Until January 2025, we had Via Actuarial Solutions as our actuary.
• That was to appoint Via Actuarial Solutions as the commission actuary.
• The motion prevails, and Via Actuarial Services is appointed commission actuary.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what our investment actuaries...
• So, you know, and I understand actuary numbers pretty well.
• So, you know, and I understand actuary numbers pretty well.
• Sorry, that did sound weird, but their beneficiaries.
• The $137.8 million is the actuarial cost.

Committee: House Local Government, Elections and Pensions

Summary: The Committee on Pensions met without a quorum at first, then later returned to executive session and held several bill hearings. Representative Haley presented House Bill 295, which would allow PSRS retirees who have reached the 80% COLA cap to receive an additional 2% COLA in years when investment returns exceed the system’s assumed rate and CPI conditions are met. Haley and supporters from the Missouri Retired Teachers Association said the bill was narrowly targeted, non-cumulative, and protected by guardrails; committee members questioned whether it could affect funding stability. PSRS/PEERS counsel testified informally that the proposal would function like a one-time “13th paycheck,” would affect about 3,400 PSRS and 800 PEERS retirees, and would cost roughly $32 million for PSRS and under $1 million for PEERS, while emphasizing the systems’ smoothing policy and funded status. The committee then adopted a substitute and passed House Committee Substitute for House Bills 2884 and 1655 by a 12-0 vote. The substitute combined language dealing with St. Louis police retirement board quorum/appointment timing, public employee retirement system provisions, and public school retirement system board quorum/vote requirements, and it also added clarifying language so retirement systems could continue routine informational communications without using funds to support ballot measures. The committee next took up House Committee Substitute for House Bills 1762 and 2059, which would increase the income tax deduction for private retirement income and raise the income threshold for eligibility. Supporters argued it would provide parity with the earlier public-pension tax break and help retirees and self-employed taxpayers; opponents raised concerns about the fiscal impact and timing. The substitute passed 8-4. Representative Bromley then presented House Bill 2144, which would increase the PSRS death benefit from $5,000 to $10,000. He said the current amount no longer covers funeral costs and that the change would help older retirees’ families. MRTA supported the concept but urged caution about system solvency and suggested looking at PEERS as well; PSRS/PEERS counsel testified that the benefit applies to all vested PSRS members, would cost about $137.8 million in actuarial liability, and would reduce the trust fund by about 0.19%. An EMPERS representative confirmed that system also has a $5,000 death benefit and uses similar third-party death-notification services. Finally, Representative Mayhew briefly presented House Bill 2205, which would exempt all public and private retirement income from Missouri income tax; no one testified in support or opposition, and the hearing adjourned after no further discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now go to our actuarial update from Michael Harbor. Thank you, Mr.
• Again, for the record, Michael Harbor, actuary for OSA.
• Given the potential need for actuarial pricing this fall, if you'd like to learn more about Given the
• So I think the question then is, Ken, is the actuary office prepared?
• Ken, is the actuary office prepared to move forward with the bill next session?

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• The case that first identified the right to an actuarially sound plan was Weaver back in the '70s.
• sound plan.
• That does not mean necessarily that it needs to be 100 percent... ...actuarially sound plan.
• sound plan to provide for those benefits currently and into the future.
• sound.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved the September minutes and then received a presentation from DRS staff on the FY 2024 CEM benchmarking survey. DRS described its administrative costs, service levels, and technology modernization efforts, noting that its overall service was just below peer averages but had recovered since COVID, and that major projects such as the CorePAM system replacement are a significant driver of costs. Committee members and DRS emphasized that the benchmarking is meant to compare administrative efficiency, not the total cost of benefits, and DRS said the CorePAM project is expected to finish around September 2027. The committee then continued its LEOFF 1 study discussion with staff, the Office of the State Actuary, the Attorney General’s office, Ice Miller, and the State Investment Board. The discussion focused on two legislative approaches: a merger of LEOFF 1, PERS 1, and TRS 1 into a Legacy Plan (5085) and a terminate-and-restate approach for LEOFF 1 (2034). Testimony explained that both approaches could satisfy federal tax requirements if the IRS issues a favorable determination letter and private letter ruling after enactment, and that the merger is viewed as the more conservative option. Witnesses said the exclusive benefit rule prevents surplus assets from being used for non-benefit purposes, but allows them to support benefits and reasonable administrative costs for plan members and beneficiaries. Questions from members centered on whether the IRS would require plan funding above 100 percent, how overfunding could be managed, the effect of prior legislation such as ESSB 5357, and the costs and timing of IRS filings; staff and counsel said the IRS process can take a year or more and recommended waiting for approval before implementation. The committee also adopted preliminary 2026 meeting dates. During public comment, several speakers supported the merger bill because it would permanently eliminate the current LEOFF 1 employer surcharge and provide a permanent COLA for retirees, while others urged caution about creating additional pension burdens for state and local governments. One commenter asked the committee to study climate change as a systemic risk to pension investments, and another requested an ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees in 2026. The meeting ended with no action on the LEOFF 1 study beyond discussion and with the meeting calendar approved.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second part would be a review of the actuarial fiscal note for the bill.
• and today we will be Michael Harbour, an actuary with OSA.
• And again, this state actuary would continue to serve as a plan actuary for the restated Left 1.
• Again, for the record, my name is Michael Harbour, actuary for OSA.
• mention the fact that pension actuaries and health care actuaries use very different assumptions and

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• plan for a particular rating period are not actuarially sound, the department shall order a revision
• sound, while the rates paid to a primary plan are required to be actuarially sound.
• Rates are actuarially sound will help ensure that health care services are being delivered to Medi-Cal
• DHCS pays to the primary health plan contractors, they are required to meet certain actuarial soundness
• So when you talk about actuarially sound calculations, I have a very vague understanding of that whole

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health-related bills, with most items presented for later vote once quorum was reached. Early in the hearing, the committee adopted a consent calendar of multiple bills with motions for due pass to Appropriations, and it noted that AB 2029 had been pulled from the agenda. The committee also took up AB 1973, a bill by Aguiar-Curry to expand who may provide procedural abortion care. Supporters, including physicians and certified nurse midwives, argued the bill would align law with current training and improve access, while opponents said later-term abortion procedures require physician-level surgical training and raised safety concerns. The author emphasized hands-on training, consultation, and transfer protocols, and the bill was held pending quorum with a motion and second recorded. The committee then heard AB 1558 by Arambula, which would adopt the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act to speed the use of out-of-state licensed volunteers during declared disasters. Supporters from the Uniform Law Commission and the Red Cross said the bill would reduce delays and clarify legal authority for volunteer health workers; there was no opposition testimony. AB 2282 by Alanis, a temporary rural emergency stabilization center for Patterson while a permanent hospital is built, drew support from local emergency responders and a late opposition from the California chapter of ACEP. The chair praised the bill as a creative local solution and agreed to coauthor it; a motion and second were recorded, with the vote to occur later. Several public health access bills followed. AB 1843 by El-Hawari would limit prior authorization and align hepatitis C treatment coverage with medical guidelines; supporters said it would remove barriers to a curable disease, while health plans opposed it as a mandate, citing premium impacts and the recent SB 306 prior-authorization process. AB 2247 by El-Hawari would create the THRIVE program for mental health services for youth affected by gun violence; Youth Alive and other supporters described trauma-informed, community-based care, and the chair and another member asked to be added as coauthors. AB 2138 by Krell would expand access to certified peer support specialists in enhanced care management and remove automatic disqualifications based solely on criminal history; supporters said peers are essential to engagement and recovery, and the bill was held with a motion and second. Later, AB 1682 by Hart would require coverage of scalp cooling for chemotherapy patients, with emotional testimony from cancer survivors and clinicians; insurers opposed it as another mandate, but the author stressed the modest per-member cost and the bill was moved with a motion and second. AB 1879 by Dixon would standardize data reporting for alcohol and drug treatment facilities, including private providers, to improve statewide information on outcomes and access; the bill drew broad support from recovery organizations and the prior opposition was withdrawn after amendments. AB 1906 by Aguiar-Curry would require coverage of at-home cervical cancer screening kits without cost sharing; supporters cited improved access for rural and working Californians, insurers opposed it on affordability grounds, and the bill passed on a recorded roll call after quorum was established. Finally, AB 1556 by Haney would clarify and support drug-free recovery housing and return-to-use policies; supporters said it would expand sober housing options, while opponents warned it could allow evictions after relapse and conflict with Housing First principles. The hearing ended with the bill still under discussion and opposition-unless-amended concerns noted.