Transcript Highlights:

• to provide, either limited, moderate, or extensive; or perhaps maintaining a Medi-Cal benefit structure
• set of benefits suffice?
• A lot of counties have maybe, for example, time-limited benefits where an individual experiences a medical
• And there is a significant economic benefit to California of receiving those benefits.
• to people who lost eligibility for federal benefits. ...is limited to people who lost eligibility for

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extended briefing on the impacts of H.R. 1 on Medi-Cal and CalFresh, followed by testimony from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and county officials. DHCS described major Medi-Cal changes in H.R. 1, including work/community engagement requirements, six-month redeterminations, reduced federal matching for some emergency services, narrower immigrant eligibility, reduced retroactive coverage, and limits on provider taxes and directed payments. CDSS outlined CalFresh changes, especially the expanded able-bodied adults without dependents time limit, reduced exemptions and waivers, and the new federal-state-county administrative cost split. Both departments emphasized implementation plans, automation, outreach, and county coordination, while acknowledging significant expected coverage losses and administrative burden. The LAO and an independent policy expert discussed how H.R. 1 could increase demand on county indigent care systems and public hospitals as people lose Medi-Cal. They reviewed the history of county indigent care, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, explaining that counties already rely on a patchwork of funding and that current realignment revenues are often used for public health rather than indigent care. They warned that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents, with wide variation in how counties respond, and raised concerns about equity, financing, and whether a more standardized state-county program should be created. Committee members pressed witnesses on county funding, exemptions, homelessness, older adults, undocumented residents, and the effect of administrative burden versus true ineligibility. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described the expected local impacts and asked for additional state support. They said H.R. 1 would drive major losses in Medi-Cal and CalFresh enrollment, increase uncompensated care, strain eligibility staff, and worsen homelessness and food insecurity. Several counties urged the Legislature to fund eligibility workers, preserve enrollment, and consider a CalFresh match waiver; Santa Clara and San Bernardino also cited local tax measures and staffing reductions already underway. No formal vote or committee action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• to provide, either limited, moderate, or extensive; or perhaps maintaining a Medi-Cal benefit structure
• Their eligibility requirements, notably household income and ages, benefits to provide, either limited
• set of benefits suffice?
• A lot of counties have maybe, for example, time-limited benefits where an individual experiences a medical
• And there is a significant economic benefit to California of receiving those benefits.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee on Health and Human Services heard an overview of the expected California budget and program impacts from H.R. 1, including changes to Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, redeterminations, work requirements, immigration-related coverage rules, retroactive coverage limits, and reductions in federal matching for certain services and provider financing mechanisms. DHCS and CDSS described implementation plans focused on automation, data matching, clearer communications, county training, and outreach, while noting that many federal details are still pending. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also reviewed how H.R. 1 could increase pressure on county indigent care systems, explaining the history of county responsibility under Section 17000, 1991 realignment, and AB 85, and warning that counties may face large increases in uninsured residents seeking care without corresponding funding flexibility. An independent policy expert urged consideration of a more standardized statewide approach to indigent care and raised questions about governance, benefits, and financing. Department witnesses estimated substantial coverage losses and fiscal effects: DHCS projected major Medi-Cal disenrollment tied to work requirements, six-month renewals, narrowed immigrant eligibility, and reduced retroactive coverage, while CDSS estimated large CalFresh benefit losses and a significant increase in administrative workload and payment accuracy pressure. Members questioned how exemptions would work for older adults, people experiencing homelessness, undocumented residents, and cash workers, and asked about the effect on the CalFresh Minimum Nutrition Benefit Pilot and on county administrative funding. Officials said they would use available data and self-attestation where possible, but acknowledged that many cases would require manual screening and that the county workload estimates remain in dispute. They also said the state is still evaluating the impact of H.R. 1 on provider taxes and state-directed payments, which could create additional budget pressure. County representatives from Los Angeles, Santa Clara, Tulare, and San Bernardino described major local consequences if H.R. 1 is implemented as written. They warned of higher uninsured rates, more strain on emergency rooms and public hospitals, increased homelessness and food insecurity, and a likely need to rebuild or expand county indigent care programs that were largely scaled back after the ACA. Counties said they are already freezing hiring, cutting positions, reducing overtime, deferring spending, and launching outreach and coordination efforts with managed care plans and community partners, but argued that these steps are not enough without additional state support. Several counties backed the California County Welfare Directors Association’s request for $373 million in General Fund support for eligibility work and asked for a CalFresh match waiver to soften the new county share of administrative costs; Los Angeles and Santa Clara also emphasized that their local revenue measures would not close the projected gaps. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Total benefits across those two populations CalFresh benefits.
• the state's exposure to benefit costs, but also in working to limit administrative burdens on program
• To your comments, the power of CalFresh benefits is that those benefits are spent almost all in the month
• We lost our CalFresh benefits. We lost our medical coverage. We lost our CalFresh benefits.
• This work includes the CalFresh Minimum Benefit Nutrition Benefit Pilot Program that is in effect now

Summary: The committee held its second hearing on CalFresh enrollment and nutrition, focused on the effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, administration, and food access in California. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Social Services outlined major federal changes: expanded work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, narrowed eligibility for certain lawfully present non-citizens, and new state and county cost-sharing for both administrative and benefit costs. Officials said about 665,000 Californians could lose benefits under the work requirement, roughly 72,000 non-citizens could lose eligibility, and California could face hundreds of millions to billions in new costs depending on error rates and implementation details. DSS described its mitigation efforts, including county guidance, trainings, automation, outreach materials, and coordination with workforce programs, while county representatives argued the workload is larger than current funding assumptions and that staffing and training needs are urgent. Members also heard from a CalFresh recipient, Lauren Keltz, who described how benefits helped her family during her daughter’s medical crisis and how a clerical error led to the loss of food, health, and cash assistance, contributing to homelessness and food insecurity. Her testimony was used to underscore the consequences of administrative errors and benefit disruptions. Grocery and agriculture representatives said CalFresh is not only an anti-hunger program but also a major economic driver, with benefits spent locally at grocery stores, farmers markets, and farm stands. They warned that cuts would reduce demand for fresh food, hurt independent grocers and small farmers, and increase reliance on food banks, while urging continued support for market match and farm-to-food-bank programs. In the second panel, advocates and local administrators emphasized the human and operational impacts of the federal changes. The California Immigrant Policy Center called for expanding the state-funded California Food Assistance Program to cover more immigrants excluded by H.R. 1. A San Francisco eligibility worker and a San Diego county administrator said the new rules will add substantial casework, require more client outreach and exemption screening, and strain already limited staffing. Justice in Aging stressed that CalFresh is a key anti-hunger tool for older adults and people with disabilities, especially as housing and health costs rise, and supported outreach funding for seniors. Throughout the hearing, members discussed the need for state funding, better automation, and stronger county and community partnerships to reduce disenrollment and protect access to food.

Transcript Highlights:

• to provide, either limited, moderate, or extensive, or perhaps maintaining a Medi-Cal benefit structure
• set of benefits suffice?
• A lot of counties have maybe, for example, time-limited benefits where an individual experiences a medical
• And there is a significant economic benefit to California of receiving those benefits.
• Is limited to people who lost eligibility for federal benefits after 1996 welfare reform.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So there are both direct benefits and marketplace benefits for drivers.
• So there are both direct benefits and marketplace benefits for drivers.
• Reducing the cost for consumers is a great benefit as well and a secondary kind of benefit in my eyes
• In addition to normal permanent disability benefits, they can work while receiving those benefits, and
• It is not a minor fiscal change to limit the recouping of these taxpayer-funded benefits from the responsible

Summary: The committee heard several insurance-related bills. SB 371 by Senator Cabaldon would lower uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage requirements for rideshare companies from the current $1 million level to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per incident, with added transparency and data-reporting provisions. Uber, Lyft, and several business groups supported the bill as a way to reduce fares and improve affordability, while consumer attorneys, labor groups, and others opposed it as a major cut in protection for injured passengers and drivers. Committee members raised concerns about whether savings would actually reach riders and drivers, but the bill was approved on a do-pass vote to the next committee, with one member not voting. SB 487 by Senator Grayson would change how settlement or judgment proceeds are distributed when peace officers or firefighters are injured by a third party, ensuring they receive at least two-thirds of the at-fault party’s liability insurance limits in certain cases. Supporters, including public safety unions and an injured deputy sheriff, said current law can leave injured first responders with little or no recovery after employer reimbursement, while opponents representing cities, counties, and public agencies argued the bill would reduce recovery of taxpayer-funded workers’ compensation costs and lacked sufficient data. The committee members who spoke largely supported the bill, and it passed on a do-pass vote to Appropriations, with one member not voting. SB 616 by Senator Rubio would create an independent community hardening commission within the Department of Insurance to develop statewide wildfire mitigation recommendations and a post-catastrophe reporting process. The Department of Insurance, local governments, consumer groups, and fire-related organizations supported the measure as a way to improve wildfire resilience and insurance availability, while water agencies opposed provisions touching water infrastructure and warned of litigation and ratepayer impacts. The bill advanced on a do-pass vote to Appropriations, with some members not voting and one member voting no. The committee also heard SB 547 by Senator Perez, coauthored by Senator Rubio, which would extend wildfire-related insurance cancellation/nonrenewal moratoriums to commercial properties; insurers removed their opposition after amendments, and the bill passed to Appropriations on a do-pass vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• ABODs were limited to three months of benefits in a 36-month period unless they were exempt or they met
• H.R. 1 significantly expands who is subject to this time limit of three months of benefits in a 36-month
• and losing benefits.
• limits.
• Many seniors already receive limited SNAP benefits, and any additional barriers or reductions will push

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, some residents have limited resources, but they're ineligible for federal SNAP benefits.
• or for substantial benefits.
• limited income.
• Additionally, Additionally, HR1 expands CalFresh's harsh time limits, which limit assistance to three
• And so remember, the error rate also includes overissuances of benefits and underissuances of benefits

Summary: The joint informational hearing focused on CalFresh enrollment, food insecurity in California, the recent federal shutdown’s disruption of SNAP benefits, and the long-term effects of H.R. 1 on eligibility, benefits, and state and county costs. Opening remarks emphasized that millions of Californians rely on CalFresh, that the shutdown briefly delayed benefits for the first time in the program’s history, and that state and local governments, including Alameda County, stepped in with emergency food aid and funding. Members also framed the issue as both a hunger and affordability problem, with several noting that California’s agricultural abundance contrasts sharply with persistent food insecurity. The first panel presented research and advocacy perspectives on food hardship. PPIC’s Tess Thorman described food insecurity rates, disparities affecting households with children and Black and Latino households, and the role of nutrition programs in reducing poverty. Nourish California’s Betzabel Estudio argued that hunger is a policy choice and highlighted campaigns to expand state-funded food assistance for immigrants, support reentry populations, and continue the CalFresh fruit-and-vegetable incentive program. The California Association of Food Banks’ Josh Wright said food banks are seeing sustained high demand, lower federal food supplies, and cannot replace CalFresh, while urging more state support for food purchasing, school meals, and SunBucks. The second panel reviewed CalFresh operations and participation. The California Department of Social Services reported that CalFresh participation has risen over the past decade, with the state closing much of the participation gap through outreach, simplified applications, and demonstration projects such as the Elderly Simplified Application Project and a minimum nutrition benefit pilot. Alameda County Social Services described local caseloads, application trends, and emergency food distributions during the shutdown, while also warning that H.R. 1’s work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, and possible cost-sharing could reduce enrollment. A student CalFresh ambassador testified about the burdensome application and recertification process and urged more funding for campus basic-needs centers and outreach to reduce stigma and administrative friction. In the final panel, county, food bank, and policy witnesses described the shutdown response and the expected impact of H.R. 1. Alameda County Community Food Bank and the County Welfare Directors Association said counties, food banks, and community partners mobilized emergency funds, pop-up pantries, and food purchasing to bridge the shutdown gap, but warned that hundreds of thousands of Californians could lose benefits under the new federal rules. The California Budget and Policy Center began outlining the scale of federal cuts, noting that H.R. 1 will significantly reduce SNAP funding and shift costs to states. No votes or formal committee actions were taken; the hearing was informational and concluded with discussion of possible state responses, including backfilling benefits, preserving outreach funding, and improving administrative systems to protect enrollment.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, we place limits on dollar amounts federally. We place limits on when we can raise funds.
• We place limits on, so you're OK with placing limits, funds from corporations.
• There's plenty of precedent where we have, we place limits.
• So you're OK with the idea of placing limits at times.
• What are, what are the limits? Say it again.

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• ABODs were limited to three months of benefits in a 36-month period unless they were exempt or they met
• HR1 significantly expands who is subject to this time limit of three months of benefits in a 36-month
• Benefits.
• limits.
• Many seniors already receive limited SNAP benefits, and any additional barriers or reductions will push

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Food SNAP benefits, are benefits issued on an electronic benefit transfer card or EBT card that families
• Food SNAP benefits, are benefits issued on an electronic benefit transfer card or EBT card that families
• Food SNAP benefits, are benefits issued on an electronic benefit transfer card or EBT card that families
• </c> um assistance benefits. um assistance benefits.
• c> benefits</c><00:08:18.639><c> issued</c> Food SNAP benefits, are benefits issued Food SNAP benefits

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee on Human Services and Homelessness received a briefing from Scott Morish of the Hawaii Department of Human Services on upcoming SNAP changes tied to the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR1/OBBA) and on the federal government shutdown’s impact on November SNAP benefits. DHS described its SNAP workload and statewide participation, noting about 86,229 households and 168,947 individuals receiving benefits in September, with roughly $58–$60 million distributed monthly. Morish said DHS has already made system and policy updates in preparation for the November 1 implementation date. Most of the briefing focused on expanded able-bodied adult work requirements. DHS explained that the work rule now applies to additional groups, including adults ages 55 to 64, households with dependent children age 14 and older, people experiencing homelessness, veterans, and youth ages 18 to 24 who transitioned from foster care. The department said affected individuals must generally work or participate in qualifying activities for 80 hours per month, with noncompliance leading to a three-month benefit limit and a 36-month ineligibility period. DHS also reviewed exemptions, including for disability, pregnancy, caregiving, school or training, unemployment, and substance use treatment, and clarified that the new Indian Health Care Improvement Act exemption does not include Native Hawaiians. DHS said it received approval for Hawaii’s request for a non-contiguous-state exemption from payment error penalties through September 30, 2026, but must still make good-faith efforts to implement the work rules. Morish also outlined OBBA changes to non-citizen eligibility, saying that beginning November 1 only lawful permanent residents, COFA residents, and Cuban or Haitian entrants will remain eligible, while other previously eligible categories such as refugees, asylees, and some parolees will no longer qualify. He noted that ineligible non-citizens must still be included in household reporting and their income counted. The committee then discussed the federal shutdown’s effect on SNAP, with DHS saying USDA directed states to suspend November SNAP issuance because of insufficient funding; existing October benefits remain usable, and TANF and general assistance are not affected. DHS said it has posted FAQs and call-center messages, and is working with the Hawaii Food Bank on an additional $2 million in support and with nonprofit partners on a new Hawaii Relief program funded by TANF for families with dependent children. Members asked about eligibility for kūpuna and documentation for the relief program, and DHS said the TANF-funded program is limited to households with a child under 18, while FAQs are now available online.

Transcript Highlights:

• Time limits do not increase employment. The theory behind time limits is appealing.
• ABODs were limited to three months of benefits in a 36-month period unless they were exempt or they met
• HR1 significantly expands who is subject to this time limit of three months of benefits in a 36-month
• and losing benefits.
• Many seniors already receive limited SNAP benefits, and any additional barriers or reductions will push

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

Transcript Highlights:

• There's clear precedent that you can place limits. I mean, we place limits on dollar amounts.
• Federally, we place limits on when we can raise funds, we place limits on...
• So you're okay with placing limits?
• Yeah, there are no current limits.
• What are the limits? Say it again.

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Transcript Highlights:

• To limit that moving forward instead of extending that time, It was limited to 16 months in terms of
• That is time-limited, so each one of these programs has limits on them.
• benefit.
• and the 60-month limit.
• contractor benefits.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's clear precedent that you can place limits.
• I mean, we place limits on when we can raise funds; we place limits on...
• Yeah, there are no current limits.
• I'm sitting under this bill, what are the limits?
• Does it put any limits on the executive?

Bills: HB18

Keywords: HB 18, Texas Legislature, quorum break, quorum-busting, legislative walkout, absent legislators, political contributions, campaign finance, political expenditures, legislative caucus, specific-purpose committee, Texas Ethics Commission, civil penalty, show cause order, district court, Fifteenth Court of Appeals, session fundraising, travel lodging food expenses, legislative session, compelled attendance

Summary: The meeting of the committee focused on the discussions surrounding HB18, which aims to prevent legislators from financially benefiting when they break quorum. Chairman Shaheen emphasized that this bill addresses the integrity of the Texas legislature and responds to constituent concerns about lawmakers being absent and raising funds simultaneously. Throughout the meeting, members discussed the implications of enforcing penalties for breaking quorum and the balance between legislative strategy and financial transparency. Various representatives expressed their views, with some supporting the bill for enhancing accountability, while others argued that it imposes unfair restrictions on a constitutional tactic historically used by minority factions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Under the DEA, eligible children and spouses can use benefits without age or time limits if the event
• Under the DEA, eligible children and spouses can use benefits without age or time limits if the event
• For children or spouses, there are age limits for using DEA benefits if the event that qualified them
• Sorry, I believe if the bill passes there would not be a time limit for folks to use those benefits.
• The federal benefit, DEA program, has no time limit after those qualifying events after August 1, 2023

Summary: The committee held its first meeting and heard four bills. HB 2286 would create an alternative route to social worker licensure by removing the exam requirement for advanced social workers and allowing enhanced supervision with supervisor attestation in place of the exam for independent clinical social workers. The sponsor and several social workers testified that the exam is a poor measure of clinical competence and can be a barrier to licensure, while opponents warned that removing the exam could affect public protection and Washington’s participation in the social work compact. Members asked follow-up questions about the compact, the exam format, and accreditation requirements, but no action was taken. HB 2363 would allow music therapy license applicants to practice under supervision for up to six months while waiting for exam verification. The sponsor described it as a technical fix to the new licensure system, and testimony from music therapists, educators, and a patient supported the bill as a way to avoid delays in hiring newly trained therapists while maintaining supervision and patient safety. The bill drew strong support in written testimony and no opposition in the hearing. HB 2324 would change tuition waiver rules for children of eligible veterans and National Guard members by giving eligible children eight years from the date of a parent’s disability determination to use the waiver when that determination occurs after the child turns 18. The sponsor said the bill is meant to align state law with federal dependency education benefits and prevent families from losing access because disability determinations can take years. The committee asked for clarification on how the new timing would work, and the hearing closed without a vote. HB 2098 would eliminate the cap on the advanced computing surcharge, expand Washington College Grant eligibility up to 100% of state median family income, and reduce resident undergraduate tuition by 10% for three years starting in 2027-28. Supporters, including students, labor, and advocacy groups, said the bill would improve affordability and access to higher education by asking large tech companies to pay more. Opponents from business and university groups argued the surcharge would be economically harmful, that the state already has substantial WEA funding, and that the bill would reduce tuition revenue without adequately backfilling institutional budgets. The committee heard extensive testimony and members raised questions about the surcharge cap, WEA spending, and the compacted funding structure, but no final action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• And limitations.
• The asset test limit will limit access to IHSS. Thank you.
• benefit.
• stricter limitations in year 2027.
• Or in calendar year 2026, we would see a limited, time-limited supplemental?

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It also raises the limit on the state and local tax deduction.
• The state likely will need to share in the cost of food benefits.
• It limits eligibility for SNAP benefits to residents of the U.S. who are citizens or nationals, aliens
• The limit is still at 200,000 cumulatively for graduate education.
• I want to say the average benefit was around $165 per month.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Accountability and Oversight held its fifth hearing of the year to examine the newly enacted federal H.R. 1 and its effects on California. Members and the chair described the law as a major threat to state health, food, education, and climate programs, and emphasized that California would not be able to fully backfill the federal cuts. Several members also highlighted the bill’s tax provisions, including temporary deductions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, while warning that the largest benefits flow to higher-income taxpayers and that major cuts to Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and clean-energy incentives are delayed or phased in over time. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance presented detailed overviews of the bill’s likely impacts and implementation timelines. They identified the main affected areas as health care coverage and financing, food assistance, higher education, personal income taxes, and clean-energy/electric-vehicle credits. They explained that H.R. 1 limits provider taxes used to finance Medi-Cal, adds work and redetermination requirements, restricts CalFresh eligibility and increases state costs, changes student loan and Pell Grant rules, extends and modifies federal tax provisions, and phases out many clean-energy credits. Finance also noted major rescissions of Inflation Reduction Act funds, new border and immigration enforcement spending, and the possibility of PAYGO sequestration if Congress does not act to offset the deficit increase. During member questions, the committee focused on likely enrollment losses, administrative burdens, and fiscal exposure for the state and counties. Witnesses said many details still depend on federal guidance, but they estimated significant impacts on Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and graduate/professional student borrowing, and noted that California’s high CalFresh error rate could increase state costs. UC testified that the elimination of Graduate PLUS loans would affect thousands of professional students, especially in health, law, and other high-cost programs. Members asked for follow-up data on county, health, and tax impacts, and staff agreed to provide additional tables and estimates as implementation guidance becomes clearer. Public commenters from counties, early childhood advocates, health coalitions, disability rights groups, immigrant-rights organizations, and other stakeholders urged the Legislature to mitigate the law’s effects. They warned of higher county costs, reduced access to health care and food assistance, increased administrative burdens, and harm to children, immigrants, people with disabilities, and low-income families. Several urged new state revenue solutions and stronger protections for Medi-Cal, CalFresh, child care, and home- and community-based services. No votes were taken; the hearing was informational and ended with a commitment to continue monitoring federal guidance and to work on state responses in the budget process.

Transcript Highlights:

• tangible benefits.
• tangible benefits.
• tangible benefits.
• tangible benefits.
• tangible benefits.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223, HB323, HB524, HB530, HB636, HB762, HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, tax exemption, audit requirements, affordable housing, local government, development bonds, housing assistance, financial assistance, low income housing, community support, affordability, veterans housing, community involvement, air conditioning, tenant support, healthcare, elderly, taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• We are requesting one-year limited-term resources equivalent to six positions, four-year limited-term
• It's the same in calculating the limit.
• And so we were far below that limit.
• So issue 11 is a BCP requesting three-year limited-term positions, three-year limited-term resources
• Eliminating dental benefits will...

Summary: The subcommittee heard a lengthy Department of Health Care Services presentation on the governor’s Medi-Cal budget, including a $229.1 billion total-funds proposal, projected Medi-Cal enrollment declines as redeterminations continue, and several major cost drivers such as managed care growth, Medicare-related costs, pharmacy spending, and changes tied to federal policy. Members focused heavily on the elimination of Prop. 56 dental supplemental payments beginning July 1, 2026, questioning the likely impact on provider participation and utilization. DHCS said it is completing the required rate reduction/access analysis for CMS, has been holding stakeholder meetings and issuing provider bulletins, but could not yet quantify the real-world effect. The committee also discussed a $50 million savings proposal tied to new hospice utilization management authority and asked about possible effects on emergency dental care and provider participation. The hearing then moved through the November 2025 family health estimate and several county and program administration issues, including CCS, GHPP, and Every Woman Counts. DHCS said family health costs are rising despite slight caseload declines because of higher utilization and medical costs, and members raised concerns about CCS website accessibility, county administrative funding, and the transition of youth aging out of CCS. The department said most CCS beneficiaries are also on Medi-Cal, that counties have long raised funding concerns, and that it had clarified use of maintenance-and-operations dollars to address some county workload issues. Members also asked about Every Woman Counts potentially seeing higher demand as Medi-Cal changes take effect; DHCS said that is possible and that the program has multiple funding sources including General Fund. A major portion of the hearing focused on provider taxes and federal changes under H.R. 1, especially the Medi-Cal managed care organization tax and the hospital quality assurance fee. DHCS explained that H.R. 1 restricts new or increased health care-related taxes, phases down allowable tax levels over time, and tightens “generally redistributive” rules, which could sharply reduce the state’s ability to use the MCO tax for Medi-Cal financing. Members asked whether the Legislature could amend Prop. 35 or whether voters would need to act; DHCS said a three-fourths legislative amendment may be possible if it aligns with the measure’s purpose, but the department is still evaluating options. The committee also discussed hospital financing, with DHCS describing recent increases in state-directed payments and the effect of H.R. 1 in capping those payments at Medicare levels, and the LAO noting the tradeoff between preserving provider taxes and maintaining Medi-Cal funding. The subcommittee also reviewed a series of DHCS budget change proposals and trailer bill items, including managed care final-rule implementation, managed care operations, a hospital value strategy, a one-year extension of skilled nursing facility financing, long-term care payment transparency, and interoperability/prior authorization requirements. Members repeatedly questioned the use of limited-term versus permanent positions, the overlap among proposals, and the timing of new financing reforms. DHCS said the SNF extension would preserve current workforce standards, sanctions, growth limits, and the SNF quality assurance fee while the department develops a broader 2027-28 redesign. No votes were taken; items were repeatedly held open for later action. Covered California then presented on the expiration of the federal enhanced premium tax credit and the resulting affordability crisis. The agency said Californians will lose about $2.5 billion in premium assistance for 2026, average premiums could nearly double for many enrollees, and as many as 400,000 people could eventually leave marketplace coverage. Open enrollment ended with 1.9 million sign-ups, down 3% from the prior year, with especially steep declines among middle-income consumers and increased movement into bronze plans. Covered California said the state’s $190 million affordability subsidy is helping lower-income enrollees retain coverage, but cannot fully replace the lost federal assistance. Members also asked about the Health Care Affordability Reserve Fund, repayment of loans from that fund, the status of federal review of California’s essential health benefits benchmark, and implementation of the new gender-affirming care benefit under AB 144.

Transcript Highlights:

• CalFresh benefits. 70,000 are at risk of losing benefits under H.R. 1's new requirements.
• to benefits.
• We wouldn't want the state-funded benefit to unintentionally reduce someone's CalFresh benefit because
• We wouldn't want the state-funded benefit to unintentionally reduce someone's Cal-Fresh benefit because
• So the value of the benefits lost minus the three months of federal benefits that they're eligible for

Keywords: 988, house, all