Food Fight Over Vending Machines
The intent is simple, according to AB 727 author Assembly member Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles).
“We would like the food sold in vending machines and cafeterias in state buildings to meet minimum nutritional and sustainability standards,” Mitchell said. “AB 727 will promote a healthier workforce by making healthy food options more acceptable and affordable.”
The Assembly Committee on Health last week approved AB 727, but only after a long, protracted and surprisingly emotional hearing.
Assembly Committee Approves Basic Health Bill
This week, the Assembly Committee on Health approved a bill to establish low-cost health coverage for as many as 800,000 low-income Californians. For a program that could pull a substantial number of expected participants out of the California Health Benefit Exchange, there has been surprisingly little resistance to it.
That’s because the state stands to save money with the new Basic Health Program, according to SB 703 author Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina).
“With this program, the state can supply more affordable coverage [for low-income beneficiaries] without a dime from the state general fund,” Hernandez said. “And it would reimburse providers at much higher rates than Medi-Cal would pay — about 20% to 25% higher reimbursement rates.”
Caveats, Proposed Amendments Clear Way for Rate Regulation Bill
The bill to regulate health insurers’ rate hikes cleared a key hurdle yesterday, as the Senate Committee on Health voted 5-3, with one abstention, to approve AB 52 by Assembly member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles).
Passage came with many caveats and even more proposed amendments. Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), the committee chair and the swing vote on the bill, suggested a raft of changes to the bill before it could garner his support.
“Primarily it’s important to depoliticize the decision process [around rate assessments],” Hernandez said. “It’s also very important to insert additional transparency in the process.”
Tying Up the Last Loose End of the Budget
The state Department of Health Care Services has completed its first set of evaluations in the ongoing process to eliminate the adult day health care program in California, according to a state official. Now it will begin the effort to move the 35,000 ADHC participants to other state programs.
Meanwhile, the central topic of conversation among some legislators this week will be the governor’s veto of a budget provision that tied appropriated funding to a new version of the ADHC program.
The negotiation for some kind of new ADHC program “is not over,” Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said. “That is yet to be determined.”
Money for Nothing, as Program Put Off
Here’s a riddle for you: When is $85 million not $85 million?
The answer lies in the budget’s passage at the end of last week, when the governor approved the long-sought $85 million for adult day health care — but didn’t approve the program that went with it.
Couple that news with Friday’s federal approval of a Sept. 1 end date for the state’s adult day health care program, and you have a grim outlook for ADHC advocates, who had hoped for a smooth transition to the Legislature-approved replacement for the ADHC program.
Opponents Square Off on Rate Regulation
In the shadow of the elephant that is budget passage, the Senate held a hearing yesterday on legislation that also holds a lot of political weight — health care rate regulation.
“Of all the bills this year, and we’ve been involved in a lot of them, this one is the most important to us,” Gary Passmore of the California Congress of Seniors said at the hearing. “This one really matters.”
AB 52 by Assembly member Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) would take a step beyond the health insurance rate review that the state currently conducts. It would allow the state’s Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care to alter or reject health insurers’ rate increases.
Trying to Quiet Rate Regulation Debate
The loud collision expected at today’s Senate hearing — between health insurers and those who want to regulate them — was expected to generate some serious verbal wreckage, and more than its share of media rubbernecking at the impact crater.
But committee chair Sen. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina) put the brakes on the rhetoric a bit, by making it a testimony-only hearing.
It’s an unusual move, hearing testimony one week and expecting to put the vote over to the next week. “It’s a little unusual to do that in advance,” Patrick Johnston of the California Association of Health Plans said. “Bills do get put over, of course, but doing it as a planned two-stage process is different.”
Decision Due on Fate of Adult Day Health Care
The state of California wants to eliminate its current adult day health care network by Sept. 1, and given the 60-day period required for implementation of that, federal approval for axing the program is expected to come this week — specifically, by midnight on Thursday.
For ADHC advocates, that gives new meaning to the phrase “drop-dead deadline.”
“If the governor’s budget assumptions are followed,” Lydia Missaelides of Adult Day Health Services said of the end-of-June deadline, “that’s the next big event.”
Is Assembly Bill for Physical Therapists, or Against Them?
Today’s the day, and you can almost hear the spaghetti-Western showdown music in the background.
Is AB 783 good, as its author Assembly member Mary Hayashi (D-Castro Valley) says? Is it bad, as members of the California Association of Physical Therapists (CAPT) attest? Only one thing is definite about this bill to define some parameters of the hiring of physical therapists in California — it has been ugly.
A vote on the bill is expected today in the Senate Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development. Last week’s scheduled vote was withdrawn by Hayashi, as she planned to meet with the opposition to craft a compromise solution.
Surprisingly Contentious Passage of SB 36
A bill passed this week by the Assembly Committee on Health would help California counties tap federal money to recoup some of the costs associated with providing health care for low-income children.
SB 36 by Sen. Joseph Simitian (D-Santa Clara), already approved by the Senate, started the Assembly process in front of the health committee.
“This measure authorizes or allows,” Simitian said, carefully enunciating this part, “it does not require — does not require, only allows or authorizes — counties to receive additional funding when treating poor children.”