AB32 — AB 32 is discussed as part of a broader panel conversation about the impacts of related bills, and it is later described as having worked, with support for telehealth highlighted as an essential part of care delivery.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Cecilia Aguiar-Curry is recognized for her leadership and long service on the Health Committee, with references to her prior related statutes and authorship of AB 744 and AB 32. She then offers introductory remarks, thanks Chair Bonta and committee staff, and says she is especially proud of the two bills, framing them as sharing a common goal and emphasizing the importance of implementation.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Cecilia Aguiar-Curry is praised for using other and more recent legislation to address additional telehealth-related issues, including concerns about remote-only providers.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Thanked as Majority Leader Abby R. Curry; likely a transcription error referring to Cecilia Aguiar-Curry.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Speaker appears to refer to Majority Leader Aguiar-Curry when thanking her for working on the issue.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Thanked for long prioritizing telehealth issues.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Aguirre-Curry was thanked and praised for her long-standing leadership and passion on telehealth, with the speaker crediting her for helping make California a telehealth leader and expressing gratitude for her dedication.
Cecilia Aguiar-Curry — Her name appears in connection with the cited statutes.
Luz Rivas — Luz Rivas was commended for launching a new legislative oversight tool and for creating the outcomes review process, with both mentions praising her work on improving legislative accountability and review.
Luz Rivas — Assembly members were referenced generally while discussing efforts to improve broadband access statewide; the speaker did not name a specific member.
Luz Rivas — Thanked for creating the outcomes review process.
Rebecca Bauer-Kahan — Referenced as Chair Bonta in the thanks for organizing the hearing.
panelists / witnesses — Thanked for being present and for their service to Californians.
Marissa Montano — Marissa Montano is introduced as one of the first panelists and then identifies herself as a senior policy officer with the California Health Care Foundation, beginning her presentation.
Amy Durbin — Named as one of the first panelists.
Amy Durbin — Introduced herself as representing the Center for Connected Health Policy and the California Telehealth Policy Coalition.
AB415 — Identified as one of the foundational telehealth bills that CCHP engaged on in 2011.
Ms. Montenonet — A witness or presenter appears to be addressed as Ms. Montenonet, though the name is uncertain due to transcription quality.
Ms. Montanow — A witness/presenter is referenced as Ms. Montanow, likely the same person being questioned about data and evaluation.
Marissa — Referenced as having spoken about a hybrid approach to telehealth.
Ms. Montano — Potential recipient of the question about data or research on telehealth outcomes.
Wendy Carrillo — Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo is introduced as the next questioner and then asks a brief question about the data being collected, specifically whether telehealth is intended to provide access sooner than a four-to-five-week wait for an appointment.
Mercer — Mercer is referenced as having mentioned mobile options earlier; likely a witness or participant, but full identity is unclear.
Ms. Montanelle — Thanked as part of the prior panel.
Ms. Durbin — Thanked as part of the prior panel.
Dr. Stephen Newman — Invited to the table as a witness for the second panel.
Angela Pontus — Invited to the table as a witness for the second panel.
Jamie Gray — Invited to the table as a witness for the second panel.
Jamie Gray — Jamie Gray, a licensed clinical social worker and clinical director at Shasta Community Health Center in Redding, testified about the value of telehealth for their patients. They explained that telehealth offers flexibility by allowing clients to switch between in-person, phone, and video visits, which is especially important for Medi-Cal and Partnership patients who face transportation costs, scheduling limits, and work or family obligations. Gray noted that telehealth is also critical for immunocompromised, elderly, medically complex, post-surgical, and otherwise vulnerable patients who may not be able to safely come in person, as well as parents and teens who need private or convenient access to therapy. They also acknowledged barriers such as unreliable internet, cell service, and broadband access, but concluded that telehealth remains an essential tool for serving underserved mental health patients in Shasta County.
Mia Bonta — Thanked as Chair Bonta for inviting the witness to participate in the hearing.
Mia Bonta — Mia Bonta is part of a continuous discussion about telehealth policy. The speaker references her earlier question, thanks her for participating, and asks about challenges and policy changes affecting telehealth and behavioral health access. The exchange concludes with a note that her comments on asynchronous telehealth answered the speaker's question.
Mia Bonta — Chair Bonta is addressed as the committee chair and thanked for putting together the committee hearing.
Dr. Stefan Newman — Dr. Stefan Newman introduced himself as a California family practitioner with decades of experience, describing his training at UCSF, service in rural Yolo County, and long career in Woodland and North Bay. He then discussed how medical practice has evolved alongside technology, from early imaging advances to the rise of cell phones and smartphones, which made on-call work and virtual care more practical. He explained that telehealth is now a routine part of his practice, with scheduled virtual visits used alongside in-person appointments. He emphasized its benefits for seniors and other patients with mobility, transportation, or technology barriers; for mental health follow-up and safety monitoring; for remote reporting of vitals and other data; for Medicare transitional care and coordination with home health; and for allowing family members to join visits remotely. He also noted that virtual visits can quickly escalate to urgent in-person care or emergency response when necessary, and that audio-only visits are often important for older Medicare patients who may not have internet access or be comfortable with technology.
Angela Pontes — Introduces herself as representing Planned Parenthood affiliates of California.
Dr. Newman — Referred to as a doctor who works with rural communities and inspired the telehealth policy discussion.
Dr. Newman — Credited with inspiring the telehealth policy effort and thanked for his work.
Dr. Newman — Explained that providers decide when a patient needs an in-person visit and described urgent escalation, including calling 911.
Dr. Newman — Described how experience, vital signs, and patient history guide decisions about virtual care and emergency referral.
Dr. Newman — Explained how clinical experience helps determine when a patient needs urgent in-person care, including emergency evaluation for possible clot.
Dr. Newman — His discussion of wearables and tools was referenced as part of the telehealth technology discussion.
Planned Parenthood representative / witness — Supported allowing patients to establish care through asynchronous visits, especially for sexual and reproductive health services.
Planned Parenthood representative / witness — Was thanked for traveling to participate and was asked about remaining barriers to telehealth behavioral health access.
Marc Berman — Referenced as the Assembly chair with a commitment to increasing digital equity.
Kelly Brooks — Testified on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems in support of telehealth.
Lonnie Riley — Lonnie Riley, Vice President of Industry Affairs at the American Telemedicine Association and ATA Action, introduced herself as a licensed occupational therapist in California and began her testimony by thanking the committee and transitioning into ATA Action’s telehealth priorities.
Jennifer Robles — Testified on behalf of Health Access California in support of expanded telehealth.
AB744 — Cited as a prior telehealth bill focused on parity for different telehealth applications.
AB744 — Cited as including a provision preventing payers from limiting telehealth coverage only to corporate telehealth providers.
AB744 — AB 744 was first referenced alongside another bill as a prior measure affecting providers’ ability to serve patients, and then the witness explicitly expressed support for AB 744, saying it has changed his practice. Together, these mentions describe the bill’s practical impact and the witness’s favorable view of it.
AB744 — AB 744 is referenced as a telehealth payment parity measure that expands access to care, including for safety-net providers.