Transcript Highlights:

• substance use disorder, we are comparing the state rates to Medicare rates.
• rate.
• rate cap moving forward.
• rate cap moving forward.
• We adopted the rates with the rate cap moving forward.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The error rate in fiscal year 2024 was below 10%.
• It's definitely possible to achieve a 3% error rate.
• You know, error rates used to be a lot lower.
• So does it... ...rates below that was pre-COVID.
• Yeah, 3% error rate is exactly what we need.

Bills: HB2180, HB2184, HB2188, HB2194, HB2206, HB2321, HB2322, HB2438, HB2442, HB2448, HB2727, HB2797

Keywords: appropriation, funding, University of Arizona, education, state budget, fetal death, funeral homes, informed consent, abortion, women's rights, medical assistance, emotional support, language acquisition, early intervention, hearing impairment, grant program, deaf education, health care, insurance claims, prior authorization

Transcript Highlights:

• does not exceed the Tier 1 rate.
• However, we recommend going further and fully fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, the rate it has been
• They asked why one rate versus the other, noting that a Tier 1 rate of about $2,900—close to $3,000,
• And based on just, you know, the tier one rate, we think that like the current rate is sufficient, but
• At that point, in the beginning of the school year, there's a rate, then they know what the rate would

Summary: The committee heard testimony on three education budget items: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP), differentiated assistance/statewide system of support, and universal school meals plus kitchen infrastructure grants. For ELOP, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to provide $4.7 billion ongoing Proposition 98 funding and $62.4 million to set a minimum Tier 2 rate of $1,800 per pupil. The LAO recommended instead fixing the Tier 2 rate at $1,579, and committee members questioned how the rate was determined, how much funding is actually spent, and whether overlapping funding from ELOP, ACEs, and 21st Century programs is being tracked. CDE said ELOP is showing positive attendance and math outcomes, but some requested data will not be available until mid-2027; members also raised concerns about double-funding, transparency, and whether middle and high school students are being equitably served. On differentiated assistance, CCEE outlined the statewide system of support and the various tiers of universal, targeted, supplemental, and intensive assistance. Finance explained the Governor’s proposal to replace the current DA structure with a more stable universal and targeted assistance model, funded at $131.9 million ongoing, with a three-year support cycle aligned to LCAP and ESSA timelines and broader State Board authority to revise eligibility criteria. The LAO objected to considering the proposal before the State Board finalizes the new performance criteria, and committee members expressed concern that moving to a three-year cycle could delay support for LEAs that newly fall into need mid-cycle. There was also discussion about whether the proposal would weaken subgroup-based equity guardrails or give the State Board too much discretion over who qualifies for support. For school meals and kitchen infrastructure, Finance proposed $1.8 billion ongoing for universal meals and an additional $100 million ongoing plus $100 million one-time for a fourth round of kitchen infrastructure and training grants. The LAO recommended rejecting the new kitchen grant round because prior rounds are still being spent and the unmet need is not yet clear. CDE said prior investments have improved meal participation, efficiency, and menu variety, but many schools still lack the facilities for scratch cooking and face construction, electrical, and procurement barriers. Members asked for more data on how prior grants were used, which schools are benefiting, and whether funds could also support lower-cost food access strategies such as pantries, while noting federal restrictions on some meal-service innovations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So it also negotiates rates with the health plans.
• So what I— and then you can't get the approval for the rate, or they're going to regulate your rate,
• Approval for the rate, or they're going to regulate your rate, but your rate is already regulated because
• factors that you can use to develop the rate.
• But this— and then, um, we have a rate review, um... ...a rate review, um, a rate review, but not rate

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1377, a bill on medical exemptions for school immunizations. The author and supporters said the measure was a narrow reform to restore physician discretion and reduce what they described as chilling effects from audits and license discipline; opponents from pediatric, medical, public health, and school groups argued the current system already works, protects against fraudulent exemptions, and should not be weakened. Committee members debated the data, the number of exemptions reviewed or revoked, and the effect of the proposed amendments. The bill was amended in committee, but because there was no quorum it was not formally voted on at that time. The committee then heard SB 995, the Masuma Khan Justice Act, which would create a statewide inspection and compliance framework for large private detention facilities. The author and supporters described severe conditions in immigration detention, including denial of medication, unsafe food and water, and lack of oversight, and the bill was presented as a response to those abuses. The California Hospital Association raised concerns about duplicative regulation and overlapping standards, but said it was continuing to work on a solution. The committee discussed constitutional and jurisdictional issues, and the bill was moved on a do-pass motion to the Committee on Judiciary with a 5-0 vote placed on call. Next, SB 1089 was heard, proposing expanded access through CalPERS and CalRX to GLP-1 medications for chronic weight disease and diabetes prevention. The author and supporters from the American Diabetes Association and medical groups argued the drugs are effective tools to prevent type 2 diabetes, reduce long-term costs, and improve health equity, while the author also shared personal experience with weight loss and medication access barriers. There was no opposition testimony. The bill was moved on a do-pass motion to the Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement with a 5-0 vote placed on call. Finally, the committee heard SB 1221, dealing with Murphy conservatorships for people found not guilty by reason of insanity or otherwise under criminal-mental health conservatorship. Supporters, including prosecutors and psychiatrists, said the bill addresses a gap created by a court decision and would improve public safety and placement decisions for a small population of high-risk individuals. Opponents from county behavioral health and disability rights groups warned it would turn a civil process into a quasi-criminal one, expand district attorney involvement, and disrupt bed prioritization and least-restrictive-placement principles. The discussion centered on the scope of the bill and its amendments, but no final vote was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• But no new rate increases.
• So the proposal is to cap the rates at the lower bound of the actuarially sound rate.
• And $300 million for rate increases, but not rate increases associated with Prop. 35, correct?
• They will have their rate increases maintained since the 2024 rate increases.
• can be provided at that rate.

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:

• Though we don’t have five-year rates yet, our teacher residents have a two-year retention rate of 91%
• and three- and four-year rates of 86%.
• If a campus receives a not rated rating for any reason, the commissioner will continue the intervention
• doesn't want to be rated, maybe.
• , and there are other ratings.

Summary: The committee continued hearing testimony on Senate Bill 2252, which would expand early literacy and numeracy screening, parent notification, intervention supports, and teacher training, including math academies and early childhood supports. Supporters from Texas 2036, Good Reason Houston, Texas Business Leadership Council, and several parents argued that early identification of skill gaps, clearer data for families, and stronger teacher preparation would improve student outcomes, workforce readiness, and long-term earnings. They cited low math proficiency statewide, the importance of early intervention, and examples of districts using screeners and data dashboards to guide instruction and resource allocation. One witness also highlighted home visiting as a family-support model, while another urged more funding for pre-K partnerships and stronger support for parents with reading materials and guidance. A district special education administrator testified neutrally, saying the bill reflects practices already used in her district but expressing concern that it could reduce local control and teacher discretion by standardizing screening and tying it to funding. A Texas Classroom Teachers Association representative supported the intent but warned that mandatory math academies and intervention academies could burden teachers if implemented like prior reading academies, and a substitute teacher/teacher-of-the-year witness asked for clearer protections around special education information and pay for alternative certification candidates. After public testimony closed, SB 2252 was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2253, as substituted, which would phase out routine hiring of uncertified teachers over time, require parent notification when a teacher is uncertified, and expand high-quality preparation pathways such as university programs, residencies, improved alternative certification, and grow-your-own programs. Senator Creighton said the bill responds to the rise in uncertified teachers and aims to strengthen the teacher pipeline with more structured preparation, mentorship, and oversight by SBEC. Invited testimony strongly supported the measure: a Texas Tech researcher said uncertified teachers and fast-track programs are associated with significant learning losses, while year-long residencies and mentored pathways produce stronger outcomes and higher earnings for students. Leaders from Dallas College and Sam Houston State University described successful residency and grow-your-own models, high completion and retention rates, and the need for paid residencies and stipends so candidates can afford to enter the profession. Committee members asked about the difference between mentorship and residency, the cost-effectiveness of paid residencies, retention incentives, and how to scale the model statewide. The committee also adopted the substitute for SB 2253 and later paused to vote out several other bills, including SB 1191, SB 1786, SB 226, SB 326, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1401, and SB 1067, all of which were reported favorably, many with unanimous votes and some placed on the local and uncontested calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> rate of return. rate of return.
• </c> and also reduce SNAP error rates. and also reduce SNAP error rates.
• , corporate tax rates, or both.
• </c> rates, corporate tax rates, or both. rates, corporate tax rates, or both.
• </c> nation rate of 11.5%. nation rate of 11.5%.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Those rates have been adjusted. The second category is increased cost of products and services.
• to 72.5 cents per mile this year, and that rate Is set by the federal government by GSA.
• But as the Chief Clerk indicated, these are rates that are set by GSD.
• How we know it's mileage versus your per diem rate, which all per diem rate is reported on your 1099
• Is the per diem rate for the 30-day session? The rate is $202 per day. 202 per day. Thank you.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The rate also went up to 72.5 cents per mile.
• And that rate is set by the federal government by GSA.
• But as the Chief Clerk indicated, these are rates that are set by GSD.
• How we know it's mileage versus your per diem rate, which all per diem rate is reported on your 1099
• Is the per diem rate for the 30-day session? The rate is $202 per day. 202 per day. Thank you.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> entrepreneurship rates are especially entrepreneurship rates are especially high<00:54:02.480><c
• Um, but it basically says that the growth rate of real per capita GDP is a sum of the growth rate in
• points below the national rate.
• And you'll see that national rate.
• You know, the rates vary across.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There's this rate negotiation that goes on and final rates are usually set sometime in April.
• So we're nearing the end of when those final rates are going to be set up.
• So what I've got is that the final rate announcements April 2026.
• And the rates we got back in the RFP, if we're just looking at ASC, for example, And the rates we got
• Also, they'll get another quarter of data in for those funding rates.

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's a rate between 0% and 8.9%. That's a rate between 0% and 8.9%.
• the experience rating.
• the experience rating.
• The seasonally adjusted rate flattens the rate significantly.
• </c> rate flattens the rate significantly. rate flattens the rate significantly.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the five states that are in the rate study, which is the way in which rates will be indexed
• One is the rate of preventive services.
• So this is the children's rates, right? So this is the children's rates, right?
• So prior to CTDHP coming into effect, the treatment rates were higher than prevention rates until the
• Yeah, I mean, just about the rates. It's not cheap by the care, because you don't set the rates.

Keywords: 962, all

Summary: The Care Management Meeting opened with a DSS update on the PCMH program. Staff reported the program remained steady at 124 practices, 553 sites, and 2,548 providers, with some month-to-month fluctuation driven by practice consolidation, retirements, and a few practices leaving the program because NCQA requirements were burdensome. Members asked about declining provider and site counts, member attribution trends, and whether PCMH practices overlap with behavioral health homes; DSS said attribution changes are largely due to members becoming ineligible, moving, or getting other insurance, and that PCMH and behavioral health homes are separate programs that coordinate informally. The committee also discussed why some smaller practices leave the program and whether the requirements could be made easier to support retention. The committee then resumed a detailed presentation on the Husky Dental program. The presenter described the dental benefit’s history, the importance of preventive oral health, workforce and consolidation pressures in dentistry, and the lack of interoperability between dental and medical records. Network data showed year-over-year declines in enrolled dental practitioners and service locations, with access gaps concentrated in rural and eastern parts of the state. Appointment availability surveys showed average waits of 38 days for adults and 23 days for children, but much longer waits at FQHCs than private fee-for-service practices. The presenter said Connecticut remains above the national median on CMS pediatric dental quality measures, though sealant rates remain a concern, and noted that preventive care is associated with lower per-member costs. Members raised concerns about provider participation, large practices dropping Medicaid, mobile dental care, and whether the public directory accurately reflects which dentists are actually accepting new patients. The presenter said the plan uses secret-shopper calls, tracks appointment availability, and has begun using place-of-service coding to better identify school-based dental care. She also noted a new MOU with 20 Head Start programs to share data and provide oral health literacy and navigation support. The final major topic was implementation planning for HR1. DSS said CMS guidance was expected in early June and proposed using upcoming meetings to cover medical frailty, communication strategy, and data integration/ex parte verification. Committee members urged the department to create a dashboard to track disenrollments and other impacts of HR1, to build a process for complaints and problem resolution, and to think through cost-sharing, caregiver verification, exemptions, and notices. Members also asked about using existing eligibility structures such as the working-disabled program as a model. The committee agreed to move the next meeting to June 10 by Zoom, with the agenda to be circulated in advance and any PCMH Plus quality data shared if available.

Transcript Highlights:

• They would, on a biennial basis, review rates.
• Rates on medical care in the country.
• the same rate as Medicaid.
• Vacancy rates range from 20% to over 50%, while our better-funded CBHCs with higher reimbursement rates
• This bill would help stabilize our clinics, including the implemented 5% rate increase, the regular rate

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a large docket focused on primary care, workforce development, and medical debt. Chairs Cindy Friedman and John Lawn outlined hearing procedures and noted that testimony would be taken on 17 matters. The committee first heard testimony on bills to establish a community health center nurse practitioner residency program and to strengthen mental health centers. Senator Keenan, Rep. Keefe, and health center leaders described the Worcester nurse practitioner residency as a successful pipeline and retention strategy, citing workforce shortages, training needs in community health centers, and the cost of the program. Rep. O’Day also supported the mental health centers bill, saying it would raise payment rates, improve reimbursement for behavioral health services, and help clinics retain staff and expand access. The committee then took testimony on bills to address medical debt through hospital financial assistance reform. The Attorney General’s Office, Health Care for All, Health Law Advocates, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, and individual patients supported the measure, arguing that hospital financial assistance policies are inconsistent, hard to find, and difficult to navigate. Witnesses said the bill would standardize eligibility criteria, create a uniform application, improve notice requirements, and expand access to discounted care up to 400% of the federal poverty level. Several personal stories described medical bills being sent to collections, confusion over insurance billing, and the burden of debt on low-income and chronically ill patients. Committee members asked about hospital concerns, the role of the health safety net, and whether the bill addressed root causes of medical debt; testimony emphasized that the proposal was meant to improve transparency and access rather than replace broader insurance reforms. The hearing also focused heavily on “Primary Care for You” legislation, H. 1370 and S. 867, which would increase primary care investment and create a new payment model. Rep. Haggerty, physicians, a patient, community health center leaders, and the Massachusetts League of Community Health Centers described a primary care crisis marked by low reimbursement, staffing shortages, long waits, burnout, and difficulty recruiting clinicians. Supporters said the bills would shift spending toward preventive, team-based care, improve access and equity, and reduce long-term costs. The Massachusetts Association of Health Plans said it was directionally supportive of increased primary care investment but warned that any new spending must stay within the cost growth benchmark and preserve existing contracting structures. The hearing ended with additional testimony on a community health center workforce and loan repayment grant bill from Rep. Stanley, and with further discussion from Dr. Alan Garo about the need for payment reform in primary care.

Transcript Highlights:

• . individual service reimbursement rates.
• Medicare adjusted base rate is what the reference-based pricing price is.
• Medicare adjusted base rate or only up?
• to meet... ...from adjusting that base rate to meet that.
• That's several cents on the property tax rate.

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, there's a rate case underway almost all of the time.
• Um, there's a rate case underway almost all of the time.
• Um, there's a rate case underway almost all of the time.
• Um, there's a rate case underway almost all of the time.
• </c><00:11:47.839><c> case</c> that by by July under our rate case that by by July under our rate case

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Energy Safety doesn't set compensation values and rates.
• I literally pay the exact same rate on my utility bill.
• That has the same 50-50 split between stockholders and rates.
• Much from the rate base.
• They get more ROE as they drive down our rates.

Summary: The hearing focused on the SB 254 Natural Catastrophe Resiliency Study and its recommendations for addressing California’s wildfire risk, utility liability, and the financing of catastrophic losses. Committee members and presenters discussed the history of the wildfire fund created after the 2018 fire crisis and PG&E bankruptcy, the role of the California Earthquake Authority as fund administrator, and the report’s three broad policy pathways: continuing mitigation investments, more equitably allocating catastrophe costs, and considering expanded state involvement in catastrophe financing. Presenters emphasized that the report was intended as a neutral, stakeholder-informed analysis rather than an advocacy document, and that the status quo is not working well for survivors, ratepayers, insurers, or utilities. CEA, CPUC, and the Office of Energy Infrastructure Safety each described their contributions and recommendations. CEA outlined options such as risk-tolerance standards for utilities, preserving safety certificate accountability, tying executive compensation more directly to safety, confidential near-miss reporting, liability reforms, and a fast-pay facility for survivors. CPUC stressed that wildfire mitigation and liability costs are a major driver of electricity affordability problems, and said the state should broaden how wildfire recovery and mitigation are funded beyond ratepayers alone. Energy Safety highlighted its wildfire mitigation plan oversight and recommended stronger safety reporting and stronger safety weighting in utility executive compensation. The modeling portion of the report estimated that a more durable wildfire fund could require about $36 billion in capitalization, with lower initial capital needs if risk transfer or liability reforms are used, but potentially higher ongoing premium or assessment costs. The report also examined state-backed insurer or backstop models, post-event funding mechanisms, and targeted community wildfire mitigation, which could reduce overall funding needs. Members raised concerns about the cost burden on ratepayers, the financial stability of utilities, the fairness of asking communities outside high-risk areas to pay, the role of local governments and home hardening, and whether broader climate-related liability or insurance reforms should be considered. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with plans for further committee hearings and stakeholder discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Energy Safety doesn't set compensation values and rates.
• I literally pay the exact same rate on my utility bill.
• You're modeling, okay, we accumulated this much from the rate base.
• So it is that rate base that existed at the time of the covered wildfire.
• They get more ROE as they drive down our rates.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an example of a four-star enhanced rate.
• Those rates over 50 to 60 of that rate is about compensation.
• will shift to the enhanced rate.
• So the idea is that we We have three rates: a part-time rate for preschool-aged children.
• And then there's a full time preschool rate.

Bills: SB2

Keywords: SB 2, State Highway Project Bonds, highway funding, transportation bonds, state road fund, motor vehicle fees, vehicle registration fees, electric vehicle fee, EV surcharge, plug-in hybrid fee, weight distance tax, road construction, infrastructure financing, Department of Transportation, State Transportation Commission, bonding authority, county road funds, municipal road funds, transportation improvement program, state highways

Transcript Highlights:

• Like, wouldn't the market rate just self-adjust?
• I mean, I guess it would be an hourly rate.
• In the arrest rates, and just a reminder, arrest rates are normalized by the population, so it's the
• And so to get the rates, we divide that. We use the population and take the rate into account.
• That's based on our group pass rate.

Keywords: 985, all