Senate Standing Committee on Health

Voice of authority. Senate Health Committee will come to order. And good afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via our teleconference service. For each presentation of bills today, we're going to allow six minutes per side, and we, extra credit if you don't take that full six minutes. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163, and the access code is 694-8930. We have seven bills on our agenda today, and four of those bills are on proposed consent. I think it'd be timely to start with the roll.

Seven. We're short one for quorum.

We can start as a Subcommitee. All right. We're going to start as a Subcommitee because there's not enough here, but we're not going to do the roll because we'll do that when we're able to establish a quorum. Okay, so first up, I believe, Senator Limon. Are you prepared to go?

Thank you.

I am.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. Currently in California, every food service worker must go through a training on food safety. This training is paid for by the employee, and it is required every three years. A recent New York Times article found that some of the money that was collected through this food handler training was paying for lobbying efforts by the National Restaurant Association. This bill would require the employer to pay for the food safety training and the employee's time completing the training.

Additionally, it would require the state to compile a list of eligible trainings, provide more transparency about alternative options that are available. There are many situations where the state has required training to be paid by an employer. For instance, here in our capitol and in other places, we have a training that our employees do and that we pay for. Additionally, safety trainings are required by California Division of Occupational Health and Safety.

This bill would ensure that workers will not be forced to pay for a food safety training program that directly benefits the employer. With me today, we have Irma Winters, a food service worker, and we also have Saru Jayaraman representing One Fair Wage.

If you could speak in the microphone behind the plexiglass, unfortunately.

Okay. Hi, my name is Saru Jayaraman. I'm the co-founder and president of one Fair Wage and a professor at UC Berkeley. We're a national organization of about 300,000 restaurant and service workers and 2500 independent, small and medium sized restaurant owners, all of whom are here to support SB 476, which would stop the egregious misuse of money from low wage workers to support California's Food Handler Training program. A few years ago, after leading for many years fights to raise the minimum wage in California and many other states, I was leaked some information from somebody inside the National Restaurant Association, some emails, showing that the majority of the National Restaurant Association's lobbying dollars don't come from member corporations like Applebee's and IHOP.

They come from workers, millions of workers who've been forced to pay for food handler training through their monopoly food handler training company, ServSafe. I gave this information to the New York Times in December 2022, and in January, they published a cover story after doing investigation that shows from 2007, when they bought ServSafe, to 2021, they doubled their lobbying dollars by actually going to states like California and getting bills passed, forcing workers to take this training and pay for it.

Now, California played a special role in this history. California is 2 million out of the 14 million workers nationally. One 7th of the amount of money that's going to lobby against wage increases across the country and here in California is coming from this state. And actually from the lowest wage workers in this state who've been forced to take these trainings. The average Applebee's worker, for example, here in California, is told before they start work, go get ServSafe. Not food handler training, go get ServSafe.

Google it, ServSafe. And come back and show me you've paid for it and gotten the certification before you can start. The 2 million workers in California include full service restaurant workers, fast food workers, grocery food handlers, catering workers, cottage home food workers, all kinds of workers who are forced to take this training and pay for it. And look, any other public health training, public safety training is provided by the employer and the worker is not made to pay for it.

And we do that because we want the most vulnerable people in our society to have access to public health information. That is the point of public health, that the people who are most vulnerable get access to it. If the NRA believes, if the California Restaurant Association believes this would be an undue burden on employers to pay for this training, imagine putting this burden on millions of the lowest wage workers in this state, how much more of a burden it is for them than for their employers.

This bill would create free market competition by allowing for many different suppliers, providers of this training, to be known to these independent restaurant owners so that they can access not just ServSafe, which for so long has been seen as the only monopoly food safety training provider, but knowing that there are many other options for them. For all of these reasons, the restaurant workers and the restaurant owners in our membership are here in support of SB 476. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next person, please. And if you want to, let's take a quick break. And if you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is present. Please continue.

[Spanish]

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Irma Winters, and I am a McDonald's worker from Santa Cruz, California. I have been working in the fast food industry for 14 years. I was requiring to take the ServSafe training by McDonald's in 2016. I pay between $10 and $15 to receive my certification. When I learned the money that I paid to ServSafe went to fighting laws mean to help me, my co-workers, and my family, I felt down. And this is injustice.

It is injustice and unfair that a powerful national organization like National Restaurant Association can trick workers like me into fighting against what is the best for us. They already have so much power, money, and access. They shouldn't need to return the earned dollar that thousand workers have paid for ServSafe certification to protect their influence.

[Spanish]

Last year, many of you in this Committee side with the fast food workers like me when you pass legislations that will establish a fast food workers concealer that will put power into the hands of the workers. However, this bill is now on hold in a large part because the industry uses our fees to lobby against to the bill and block him from going into a faith. I thank you for considering legislation does take the burden of paying for this training.

ServSafe through me about equality, food temperature, and keep sanitary environment at work. Why this is important, I wish I would have to learn about my rights in protection as a worker.

Thank you very much. Your time is up. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anybody else wishing to speak in support at this time, please line up. Just your name and affiliation.

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, proud co-sponsor of the measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Adrienne Roy on behalf of RAISE: High Road Restaurants in support.

Thank you.

Thomas Atkins, service industry worker in support.

Thank you very much. Okay, at this time, we will have people in opposition please come forward at this point. You also have six minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Senators. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. Love the Senator, love the author. Have major problems with the bill. Unfortunately, the narrative that you're hearing, and with all due respect to some of the witnesses, isn't correct from the California Restaurant Association's perspective. I happened to work for the Association when this was coming through the Capitol. This came through the Capitol at a time when Senator Alex Padilla was running some bills on food safety training.

What was leading up to that point was the fact that we had three different counties, Riverside, San Diego, and San Bernardino, that had their own health requirements, their own health training requirements. Those were typically done in classrooms. Those were expensive, up to $60 per test. So that was incredibly employee unfriendly. And it also made absolutely no sense to have food safety standards that differed from county to county.

So the health inspector community that we work with day and day and day, every day, all through the pandemic and long before, the health inspector community, Senator Padilla, at the time, Alex Padilla, the Department of Public Health, and a huge coalition of people worked on the Food Safety Program, and that's what led to SB 602.

SB 602 was backed by the Department of Public Health here, although they flagged a number of exemptions that were made for non-restaurant entities that don't have to live up to the same food safety training, which still exists today. So that was the landscape that led up to this. We insisted on three things that were employee protective in the existing law. One of those is that the product, the end certificate is the property of the employee. The other one is that it's portable.

It's portable from job to job, region to region. Affordability. I haven't seen this before, and maybe it exists, but written into the statute is that there must be one provider at $15 or less. This was back in 2011. There are tons of providers out there now. They get as low as $8, maybe even lower. I know $8 because my son just went out and got one. Asked me if it was legitimate, because it was not from ServSafe. Of course it's legitimate.

ServSafe happens to be like Kleenex. We all refer to this brand when we just want a piece of tissue. That's what ServSafe is. It is true that ServSafe is the gold standard. It's the best in class. It's what we think is the best product. So I understand that the sponsors, some of the sponsors have a beef with the National Restaurant Association. Our lobbying dues are paid by our member dues, period. No question. So that's where we stand on the issue.

We think shifting the burden onto the employer is inappropriate because of the robust debate that took place 10 years ago that had so much consensus behind it, and which, by the way, included the labor organizations in those discussions. So that's where things stand on the actual product and the food safety training. Of course, restaurants continue to have massive losses from the pandemic closures. Those were not choices.

Those were driven by the state and the 63 different health department jurisdictions that told us when and if we could operate. Meanwhile, we had 100% of our costs. We're not out of the woods on that. It's going to be years before restaurants get back on their feet. 85% of our restaurants are independent, community based restaurants. This is a huge cost shift at an incredibly inappropriate time and completely undoes 10 years of really good policy. For these reasons, we're opposed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Anybody else testifying against this? Anybody else just wishing to speak against this? Now would be the time for your name and affiliation. Okay, so we'll go to the phone lines now. Moderator, is there anyone standing by on the phone?

Thank you, Madam Chair. You want to take them both?

Yeah, I think that's what we're going to do it. So, callers, your affiliate, name, affiliation, and just if you're yay or nay.

All right, ladies and gentlemen on the phone lines, if you are in support or opposition, please press one, followed by zero. One, followed by zero at this time.

On behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Line 37, you are open.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 36, please go ahead. Excuse me. We'll go to line 33. You're open 33.

Hi. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll give a final reminder. If you are in opposition or support, please press 1-0 at this time. And line 34, please go ahead.

Julia Parish, on behalf of Legal Aid at Work in strong support.

Thank you. Next caller, please.

Madam Chair, we exhausted the queue.

All right. Thank you very much. That would bring it back to us. Senator Limón, one of the things that Mr. Sutton- loved the lobbyist, love the restaurants- said was that people's certificate is portable. So do you have any knowledge about your witnesses, about the amount of people who get their certificate and then go someplace else, if there's any history of them, people having to get reauthorized? Or is there a database that maintains that authorization and certificate, even though it's portable?

So I will actually have my sponsors speak on that.

The workers are required to take the training over and over again every three years. There's a worker training. There's a manager training. This is not a portable license. It's not a skills license. It's a safety training and any other safety training the employer provides for free on employer time. It's not a skills license. I want to be very clear about that.

Okay. Thank you. So it's every third year? It's renewed every three years. Is there a database?

That maintains who's taken the training and who hasn't? Not that I- It's up to the worker to have their certificate, will say what year theirs is valid until. Does that make sense?

That makes sense. Might be another bill to have some kind of database that we can more easily track that.

Thank you for the idea.

I had another question or just another comment, I think. These are all- I mean, we are still facing this where I know restaurants are struggling. I know workers are struggling. I know it's a hard time to get employees in. But just for the point that we know that laws get updated. And I just happened to be recently in the room with Senator Padilla and Senator Limón where she talked to him about this food safe.

And he said, you know, we start with one thing and then we continue to build forward. So Senator Padilla is in the loop on this. Senator Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Maybe I need to talk closer. Okay. I think, I would like clarification. The question the Chair asked was, is it portable? Meaning, if I say, I work at Mcdonald's today, and in the next three years, I went from Mcdonald's to Carl's Jr., to a restaurant, that same license or certificate, can I use it at another restaurant the next three years? That's the question.

Yes.

And that's- the other. I want to make a comment. Madam Chair. Here's where my concern is with this bill. I heard about- yes, was mentioned by one of the speakers that when you get a police training and you have to update that, the Police Department pays for it. Yes, because that's a public agency. And those police officers goes and work in another public agency, and that training and skills or training. But when you have, like say, a Doctor, a medical Doctor, they don't get those.

Or a dentist, when they update their license annually, or get its recertification, they pay for that personally. Because they can go from one hospital to another hospital and work. They can go from Orange County to Los Angeles. So that's actually paid by the employee and not by the employer. And so my concern is that, where are we heading in? Because restaurants are not owned by the state or a public agency. It's owned by individuals. I completely understand how difficult it is.

But I think maybe a consideration. Madam Author, is this, and it happens a lot in the minority communities, particularly also in the Asian community for us, that I've seen, these providers that are providers out there that are doing these training, are they charging more than the $15 or the $8? Because sometimes they tend to prey on minority communities where they add that extra fee to train or to teach you how to take these exams. So is that where the problem is?

Or is it the $8 or $10-$15 we're talking about? Because when you're going to try to learn and take these U.S. citizen tests, there's always these providers out there that would charge you $1,000 to be able to learn how to take the U.S. citizens exam. So is that where the concern is? Where is the concern?

Thank you. So I will say, just to your example about a public agency paying for public employees, it's very common that in law firms that are private, that law firms actually pay for their employees bar dues. And so if that employee leaves, they actually still have a valid bar due. So that's just one example of a sector where it's very, very common for the private employer to pay for the employee.

As far as the issue you've identified, we haven't flagged that there is anybody that is in a lack of compliance with the $15 fee. The issue came from a national conversation that spurred, and I respect the Restaurant Association's position, that the information, from their perspective, is not accurate. But there is evidence that says otherwise. And I think that that will be disputed as that goes through the process. That the fees that an employee pays are being used very often to lobby against the employee.

So the origin of why this bill comes from that national conversation that's happening at the moment. And so this is a way to say it's not so much about the simple cost or whether or not that cost is being abused. We don't have widespread evidence that it's being abused. As you heard from both presenters in support and opposition, the cost for this training varies from $5 to $15 and that is spread out over three years.

So it can be anywhere from a $1.75 per year per employee that you're paying, or $5 per year, depending which you do. And so this is very specific to one of the training courses. I think also what's happened since the law passed 10 years ago is that we've actually seen more individuals that are now offering that because the free market is allowing for more competition and therefore the cost is actually changing. When you look at it from that individual perspective, it's slightly different.

So I just want to make sure that certainly, if there was fraud, that would be a third bill that I can think about. But at the moment, it's coming from the genesis of a national conversation that's happening about the fact that an employee is paying for a fee that's at times being used against it. And I think that that is a national conversation that is going through a debate process, and it will go through the debate process.

But as this goes through the debate process, we have a bill in front of us to deal with that.

May I add something? Madam Chair? I appreciate the comparison with law firms, but law firms does it. Some do it, some don't. It's not a law, it's not a state law. This is going to be a state law requiring it. And law firm does it as a benefit to keeping lawyers as well, staying there, because having the cases that they do, they want the consistency of individual lawyers to stay on that case for 2-3 years down. I've been a waitress.

I've worked in the food service industry as well.

My family also owns restaurants in the past, and we had one of the first faux restaurants in Orange County way back when. So I've been busting tables and everything since I was itsy bitsy little ones. The food industry I'm very familiar with. And I think, though, is it comes down to what the unintended consequences for this bill is going to be. The mom and pop restaurant owners, a lot of these restaurant owners over thousands of them in my own district, particularly in Little Saigon.

Artesia has Little India. Cerritos has lots of Filipino-Filipinotown as well. These minority owned restaurants are not going to know this. And you're putting a burden on these restaurant owners. They're not the McDonald's, they're not the big chain that are making thousands of dollars or whatever they're doing. These people ,restaurant business, and everybody noticed it's a penny business. You count pennies. And so the unintended consequences, you're going to really hurt the mom and pop restaurants.

And so I hope that you consider that as this continued to move forward, because this is now mandating statewide tens and thousands, hundreds of thousands of restaurants, big and small. And these individuals, though, this license is kind of like our driver's license. We each pay our driver's license annually, and we get to drive all across the state and the country. And that's a card that this certification gives you.

This card has an expiration date, just like our driver's license. But we're all individually responsible for our own driver's license. And so I think this is going to the ripple effect, the unintended consequences of all these mom and pops restaurants all across the state that are going to be hurt. And you also know, is individuals who work in this industry doesn't stay there for 10 years, not like a law firm. They don't stay there for five years either.

Some of them don't even stay for a year. So they move around quite a bit. And so I hope that you also please be mindful of those small mom and pops restaurant as you move forward.

Absolutely. And I will say that as someone who has worked in the restaurant business, who has family in the restaurant business, the number one conversation I've been having with these non chain small restaurants is that this is a hard time for them to employ folks. And if they're talking about a $5 a year, that's actually not their biggest challenge. They're willing to make that investment. So that is something that I know firsthand. I know what it's like to have family in the business.

I know what it's like to be a family member that says, hey, we don't have enough people today. Can you help us out with catering? Check, check, check. Done all that. And so I think for me, it's important to just also recognize that there is a national conversation happening about this, and we want to try to solve that problem.

In no way, I disagree with the analysis that this is going to hurt small moms and pops, because I think that there is a bigger issue at the moment, is how do you keep employees there? And how do you work with employees and ensure you have enough employees?

And I've not talked to anybody yet that will tell me that an investment of a $1.75 a year to $5 a year is the wrong direction to go, if an employee feels that they can trust that what they're doing is in the interest of the benefit of the employee.

Thank you very much. Senator Wahab.

Thank you. So I just wanted to say one, I really appreciate your leadership on this particular issue. I would also like to join as a co author, and if possible, I'd like to move this item. Thank you.

The bill has been moved by Senator Wahab. Senator Menjivar.

Question for the sponsor or the individual opposition. You mentioned sponsor, that there is a health safety course required by employees to take. I'm wondering if that's already being covered under the restaurants, why this training can't be embedded in there, and then that would eliminate any additional costs?

And I'm sorry to want to jump in, but if it's okay, Senator Nguyen, I'm so glad you brought up.

We're just going to answer the question that was posed to you right now. Okay?

Okay. Medical and nursing licenses, when you get those, they're for skills, how to operate on a patient, how to be a nurse. So when we had Covid training for doctors and nurses, it was free. It was provided information because it was public health information we wanted to provide to those people. That was transportable information, Covid information, new information that came out.

So when doctors and nurses who have licenses around how to do the work, they pay for that, but they do not pay for additional training around public health, new public health information that comes out. Similarly in restaurants, every restaurant worker, you're right, gets training on how to do the work: how to cook, how to serve, how to bartend. They get that training. It's usually on the job training, and within that, people are trained in how to do this safely. Please keep the food at this temperature.

Please don't leave the drinks out too long. People get that information already. And you're absolutely right, it could be embedded. And also there are nonprofit providers who could provide very small businesses with free training. All of that is totally possible. What is wrong right now is to compare this license to a medical license, which is a skills license. This is a public health information license, which shouldn't even be a license. It should be public health information provided the way we provided Covid information.

To the witness, we're just going to answer. You answered the question. Thank you very much. All right. So I think the point she's making is that the rest of them aren't something that's required. It's just something that a restaurant does.

Chair, would you mind the opposition to respond to my question to see is that possible?

Mr. Sutton, would you like to respond?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not sure I completely understand the question.

May I repeat it? Employees are required to take some on the job training already by restaurants. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that's just per restaurant, right? You get a job at a restaurant.

It's training how to safely utilize x, y, and z. My question is, I'm wondering if this additional training can be embedded within that training already that's done on the job? And why does it have to be separate?

Well, it's a good question. I appreciate that, Senator. I think the answer is that this is elevated food safety training. So this is not training that one would have in the normal course of having restaurant training. So this is elevated training that health inspectors thought was worthy in three counties. And what was done in 2011 was to make that system wide, statewide consistent because of a number of foodborne illnesses and things of that nature that were taking place.

So reducing foodborne illness, elevating training is something that we stood by then and we still stand by. And so we do think it should be separate. So I hope that answers the question.

Can I just comment? The intention of this bill, and I don't think, even with the opposition or support, is to remove this training. Like, there is not a question about whether or not the training is appropriate. We all agree.

Senator Roth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to try to understand the nature and the scope of this issue. We've been talking, I guess, about applicants for employment who have to produce a food handler card. What happens to individuals who are employed with the portable card when the card is valid and the card expires during employment? What do you do? Is there some industry standard as to how that's applied? Do you then allow time for the current employee to go obtain the training?

Do you provide it on site? Do you pay for the time? Do you pay for the training? Maybe Mr. Sutton could address that.

Mr. Sutton.

Just curious, It would seem to me, from a recruiting standpoint, if you have a workforce shortage issue, that that might be something you might want to do anyway.

Senator Roth, thank you. Yes. So if your food card expires in the midst of working for an entity, then you would take it again, take the course again, and renew the certificate. Some restaurants do that for their employees. The law is silent on who does that. A lot of the big name restaurants that have been named in this hearing have their own internal training programs.

So I'm talking about the community based restaurants that tend to have to do this on their own and not part of an in house shop. So, yes, it would have to be renewed. Some employers might do it for their employees. It's become so customary that most employees just take great pride in getting that certificate and doing the training. It's affordable, it's portable. The issue with moving it to the employer is not just, I know it's being diminished, not just the training, but the costs.

It's the time of taking the training. On a conservative basis, some of the trainings are at least 2 hours, and so it becomes a per head added cost for the restaurant. And most of our employees are paid well above minimum wage, and so it ends up being anywhere from $50 to $100 per employee to do these renewals. So I'm sorry, it's a mixed answer. Some will provide it for their employees, and some will expect their employees to keep it renewed.

And so that's generally what we see today, and that's what the law allows. And the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement's opinion is that if an employer requires training, then the employer should pay. When the state requires training, then unless it's said in law, then the employee should cover the costs. And I understand that Senator Limon is switching that. And that's the proposal before you.

Well, there's some provisions, as I recall, in the Occupational Safety and Health Act, where we require certain safety equipment. And somebody has to pay for it, and it's not the employee other than normal tools and equipment right?

Yes, could be. It's out of our-

We obviously have some work. I'm supportive of the bill. We obviously have some work to do. It seems to me without a database, that an employee, a potential employee, could show up and an employer either forget they have a food handler card or have one and not mention it, and the employer then has to incur the expense of not only the time, but the training to provide a duplicate card.

I'd love to address that.

But if this bill moves forward, of course, I think at some point, I think the Chair has already referenced that we're going to have to deal with that.

Just for the benefit of the Committee, if I may, Madam Chair. There is a database, and so restaurants keep databases of who has shown and proven that they are up to date on their food safety certification. That is checked by the county health inspectors.

When the health inspectors are coming in to do the normal inspection, this is one of the items they check for. So restaurants will produce a database that matches their current employee base with this list. And so that is there. Then there are counties like Los Angeles and others that list all of the providers well beyond ServSafe on the website.

Thank you. Senator Hurtado.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I feel like I'm missing something here. Actually, I love the fact that we're talking about food safety because this is a topic that I'm really interested in. But I really strongly feel that food safety or foodborne illnesses are going to be on the rise. They're not decreasing. They're just going to get significantly worse.

And I think that this could be a win-win situation not only for the workers, but for the restaurants as well, because it's really a small investment in your own business. Because what would happen to a small business or any business if someone becomes sick or multiple people become sick due to food safety or lack thereof or whatever it may be, that's going to create huge damage to that business itself.

I really see this as a winning situation for both, where it's just a small investment. It's really an investment in your own business. So with that, I will be supporting the bill.

Thank you very much. Senator Glazer.

Well, I'm struggling with this bill. Great author but um-and it's because of this broader. First of all, there's this atmospherics that I heard in the testimony earlier, which certainly troubled me, that somehow this was an insidious way for restaurants to get employees money to lobby against employees or worker protection. And I'm sorry, but that argument to me is certainly out in the universe. I mean, if I go to Mcdonald's and buy a hamburger, am I contributing to Mcdonald's efforts? We have this big franchise fight.

Of course not. If I buy an Apple computer, am I contributing to their lobbying efforts of whatever they may be? Of course not. I know that's a side issue, but at least I wanted to at least address it. But my struggles with this, as it is with many other things, is that the intentions are good, but what are the pragmatic impacts on this type of a proposal?

I'd invite Mr. Sutton to come back and reiterate. I think something he alluded to in his earlier testimony, which is, how are the restaurants doing these days? I know it's just a rip roaring economy out there and everyone's going out to eat. I'd invite him back to maybe provide some stats about how all of our restaurants are doing. Because I don't think they're doing so well. I see a lot of empty storefronts in my walk here every day.

Briefly, Mr. Sutton, I don't think you needed to give us a full rundown on the status of restaurants in California.

Appreciate that, Madam Chair. Senator Glazer, thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Restaurants continue to face inflation. Of course, we have the pandemic losses that, again, were not due to our choice to close and lay people off. They were due to government ordered closures. Not looking to relitigate that. But the issue there is that the hangover is huge and it still continues.

How many restaurants are opened and closed in the last three years? How many employees have lost their jobs in restaurants in the last three years? I'm just looking for the facts.

Yeah. We saw 900,000 restaurant employees laid off during the pandemic.

Okay.

And our goal is to get back to where we used to be, being the second largest private employer and being the second largest producer of local revenue for sales tax.

Okay. And in California, how many restaurants have closed in California in the last three years?

That number I don't have. But we are expecting, when it does come in, that the data comes in, that we're going to see at least 30%.

Okay. So it's really hard on a good intentions bill like this to say, oh hey, it's like normal good times. So let's move these costs over to the restaurants, because it's the right thing to do. If that's the view of this Committee or of the Legislature. But this isn't normal times, folks. We are in a crisis, in a crises. And so is this the right time to take this good intention step? And that certainly troubles me.

I guess we would say Senator Hurtado's point right before yours was that this could be a win win.

Right? Because what we do know is, in addition to the causes of inflation, the cost of being able to, or the quest to be able to have employees and keep employees on is the bigger troubling. I think problem for right now is a workforce issue. And if this could be also seen then as a way to bring people in and keep people in, that could be helpful for restaurants.

And with respect to the Chair, I thought there was a secondary issue brought up about the safety issue of food and that there's a mutual interest in making sure that the food preparation and all the rest are safe. And I think that's a self interest that's built into any kind of food service to make sure your employees are properly trained on food safety. I certainly want them to keep their jobs and be in a position to be promoted from that.

And we thank you for that. Anybody else at this time? Senator Wahab?

Thank you. Um sir, you stated that this is the second largest income, no private employer. And then the second, what was your second point?

We look forward to getting back to the position we were in as the restaurant community in California, and that was the first or second largest private employer in the state and the first or second largest provider of local and state sales tax revenue.

Okay.

Those are two statistics that we kind of go back and forth with, Healthcare and new car sales.

Okay. So first or second largest sales tax revenue generated by this industry as a whole. Correct?

That's where we were before the pandemic. Yes.

Okay. And where are you right now?

Don't know that. But we're not in first or second place. I know that.

Okay. Are you in the top 10?

Yes.

Okay. And Senator Limón, your bill specifically is talking about roughly $5 of an investment or what's the course of the year?

At the maximum, $5 of an investment a year because it's $15 training for every three years. At the low end, you might find some counties that do it free. But mostly about $5 to $8. Per three years.

And, Senator, we've talked a couple of times about different industries, and you mentioned somebody here mentioned the legal industry and so forth. Right?

It's common practice that industries do pay for gloves and safety gear and much more, is that not correct? Okay, because they are doing the work of the business.

Correct. As a matter of fact, during the pandemic, we had a lot of businesses asking us for more of that. Right? For more of those supplies because those were really critical.

So the state stepped up to make sure that this critical use of these safety tools were in hand, to be able to have them purchase them for their employees.

And the food industry workers, um I'm sure we have some individuals that can speak on the topic, are often considered the lowest income earners in the State of California, correct?

That's correct. I might say childcare workers, too.

But roughly same ballpark, right? And we have the second largest tax revenue generating industry here. So I think that we can just, based on those facts, we can talk about making this investment a permanent staple in California. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else? Senator Roth.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to explain my position here, which I don't always do. But in listening to this and thinking about it, we impose a requirement on an industry for public safety, for food safety reasons. That's my understanding. And then we turn around and we place the burden of that on a workforce that has historically been one of the lowest paid in the state.

And the question here, is whether we continue that or whether we shift the burden, a fairly small burden, depending on the size of the enterprise. Whether we shift the burden to the employer in those cases where the applicant comes without a food card, food safety card, handling card, or where the card expires during employment and the employee wishes to continue to work there, or the employer wishes to continue to have them work there, or both.

And if that's the choice, I have to side on shifting the burden to the employer in this case. Because it's a food safety requirement that we're imposing on an industry, not the individual worker. So I just wanted to put that on the record. It's not a criticism. I just think it's a tough choice, but I think it's one that we have to make. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, Senator Limón, would you like to close?

You know, I'm just going to close with everybody's last comments and respectfully ask for an aye couple vote.

Thank you very much. That was moved by Senator Wahab and the action is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Secretary, please.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open for the absent members. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, if anyone's inclined, there are four items on consent, and we do have a quorum.

So moved.

That was moved by Senator Wahab or Senator Menjivar. Okay. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Madam Chair, you may present SB 299.

Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. Today I'm presenting SB 299, a bill that will help Medi-Cal users not lose their Medi-Cal when they move. So right now, the rule is it's kind of wacky if you think about it. If Medi-Cal sends you something and it gets kicked back or you don't get it, you get cut off Medi-Cal and then you have to reapply, which makes no sense.

I mean, if you have a commercial insurance, this doesn't apply to you, so why should it apply to you? And people will still have to reapply for Medi-Cal at the appropriate time. This just says if their mail gets kicked back, they don't get kicked off. And with me here today, I have Linda Nguy from the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

On Center on Law and Poverty, pleased to support SB 299, which would preserve Medi-Cal eligibility by deleting outdated statute that requires county eligibility workers to automatically terminate an enrollee's medical coverage when mail is returned to the county or is undeliverable. Current state law requires eligibility workers to terminate a Medi-Cal case if the county receives return mail. This bill would delete this requirement and confirms with federal and state action.

This change would help low income Californians keep their Medi-Cal coverage and is especially timely when considering Medi-Cal renewals, which were put on pause during the public health emergency, will resume in April. For the first time in three years, beginning in July, Medi-Cal cases will be cut if the Department cannot confirm eligibility. The Department has done a lot of work to update data, but last year estimated about 12%, or 1.5 million people, have out of date addresses.

In addition, our advocates report clients calling the county to report changes but unable to get through due to current county workforce shortages. Therefore, it is especially important to ensure that return mail does not automatically result in termination. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And at this time, we'll hear from any other support. In support, please.

Good afternoon. Andrea Rivera, on behalf of the California Pan-Ethnic Health Network, in support. Thank you.

Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter for the American College of Emergency Physicians. In support.

Yasmin Peled with Justice in Aging. In support.

Autumn Ogden Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with Health Access California, in support.

Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair. Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, in support.

At this time, we would like to, if there's anybody, any leads, witness in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposite on this? Seeing none. We'll now move. Do we do telephones? At this time, if there's anybody who's on teleconference, call in opposite or support. Hearing none. What's that? Moderator, anybody there?

Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to testify in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. One moment. We're going to begin with line 50. Please go ahead, line 50.

Hello, this is Christine Foy. On behalf of the California Dialysis Council in strong support.

I'll give one more reminder here. Please press 1-0 if you are in support or opposition.

This is for SB 299.

Thank you. And we do have one or two queuing up here. One moment as the Operator gives them their line number.

Anybody else, please press one followed by zero. Line 52, please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Members. Dennis Cuevas-Romero with the California Health Plus Advocates. In support of the bill.

Another one with an Operator. One moment. Line 25, you are open.

Hi, this is Lily Kotansky from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. And we are in support.

And I believe that's stated as the last one, I'll bring this back to Committee. Comments, questions?

Move the Bill.

There's a motion. The motion is due pass as amended. And to refer to the committee on Appropriations. But if I can make this quick. Thank you. This is a great bill because we work a lot with a lot of constituent who has been moved. And just to get into the system to try to get their address back on is very difficult, especially those who has limited English ability. And so I really appreciate your effort, Madam Chair. Roll call, please.

I'll take that as my close.

Thank you. I'm sorry.

[Roll call]

Thank you. And we'll keep the vote open. Madam Chair, at this time, your bill, SB 363.

Thank you very much. And this Bill may sound familiar to some of you because I've been working on this for a while. So we're back at it again this year. And this has to do with a bed registry.

Right now, if somebody goes into an emergency room to be placed on a hold or somewhere looking for a detox bed or something, a hospital emergency room or any other treatment facility is going through the phone book, looking at their resource list, looking at paper and pencil, and then making various calls. Do you have an opening? Can you take this? Can you take that? And this is a movement that's happening across the country, a database.

This bill would require the California Department of Healthcare Services, in consultations with others, to establish a database. So it's the online on time database. Where there are psychiatric beds, where there are substance abuse beds, where there are community beds available, and what the parameters for those said beds are, the information, specific information, again, including the contact information, who the designated employee is, who the right contact person is to be able to streamline that so people aren't sitting, waiting for a bed that somehow can't be found.

If there could be one, perhaps in the next town over. As you know, finding beds is much more difficult than it should be. We do need more beds, but those that are out there should be utilized as rapidly as possible. I spoke before a group of social workers last week at a hospital who told me they have clients who stay there six months because they can't find another place for them.

And the trials of trying to find online on time databases in which to place people, I think this will streamline things in a much better way. I understand it poses some challenges. I don't think it's any challenges that are beyond us, and especially as we move more and more into this new world of AI, I think that's also another thing.

If it can tell me what's in my refrigerator and what I can make with it, I think it can also help us figure out where the beds are and who best are qualified for that. With me here today to testify in support, I have Randall Hagar, the Legislative Director with the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance, and Moira Topp on behalf of Mayor Todd Gloria and the Big City Mayors Coalition.

Good afternoon. I am Moira Topp, speaking on behalf of the City of San Diego, Mayor Todd Gloria and as Senator mentioned, I also represent the Big City Mayors Coalition, of which Mayor Gloria is this year's Chair. The BCM, as we're known, is the coalition of mayors of both state's 13 largest cities. Mayors see firsthand how our communities have struggled to provide appropriate and timely care to those experiencing severe mental illness and substance use disorders.

Last year, the Governor and Legislature took positive steps toward reforming the antiquated, inefficient, and at times inhumane behavioral health system to ensure the Care act and other reforms reach their full potential. Reforms like SB 363 before you is critically important. A database of available specialty care beds to serve those struggling with mental illness and substance use disorder is of paramount importance to the mayors in our coalition.

Such a resource will help local governments, service providers, and the healthcare community understand bed availability to expedite referrals to inpatient and step down care. We have reached a crisis point of seriously mental ill Californians languishing in our communities. SB 363 will make improvements across the continuum of care and better position California to provide the services and care that Californians expect and desperately seek. We thank Senator Eggman for her continued leadership on this issue.

We respectfully request your aye vote and the Big City Mayors stand ready to implement these measures in partnership with the state and our local entities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Randall Hager, representing the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California. We are proud co-sponsors. We have been here before. Some of you may have heard this bill. It's just as important now, if not more so than it has been in years past. We have just come through a crisis with COVID that has spiked the mental health concerns in our communities. People in crisis are popping up everywhere.

And in a situation like that, it's really, really important that we have a place to send people. And right now, if you look at what the Department of Healthcare Services website says, it gives you a downloadable pdf of the facilities in the state. And then you do the download and then you start calling.

Most managers in facilities who do discharges will tell you that they know their local area pretty well, but if you have a specialized patient, they might be older, they might be a woman, they may have health complications, but they come to the hospital with a psychiatric diagnosis, those individuals can be really hard to place. And so what better expedient to be able to do that quickly and safely than to have an online database? California is one of the states that does not do this.

Other states do. There is good examples of how to get it right out there. And so we're really strong believers that this does create better quality of care, more rapid delivery of appropriate care, and we commend this to your support. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time, we will hear from other support witnesses.

Madam Chair and Members, Paul Yoder, on behalf of two other co-sponsors, City and County of San Francisco and Mayor London Breed, and also the California State Association of Psychiatrists, urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kyra Ross, on behalf of Mayor Lincoln and the City of Stockton, in support.

Good afternoon. Ross Buckley, on behalf of Sacramento City Mayor Darrell Steinberg, in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Tim Madden, representing the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Good afternoon. Stephanie Estrada, on behalf of Mayor Matt Mahan from the City of San Jose, in support.

Members of the Committee, Brandon Marchy, with the California Medical Association, in support.

We will now move on to lead witness in opposition.

Good afternoon. Lisa Gardiner with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. We respectfully have an Opposed Unless Amended position on this bill. We believe, like the supporters, that California would benefit from a more thorough inventory of inpatient beds, and we particularly recognize the unnecessary suffering that happens when patients aren't able to connect with the care and the beds that they need. But we do believe the development of this database should be guided by partnerships rather than punitive approaches.

And we are concerned that this bill would allow DHCS to be empowered with a sanctioned authority for a set of compliance criteria that really haven't been developed yet, and we don't know what they are yet. So this would expose our county behavioral health agencies and contracted providers to unknown liability when the parameters of the database again haven't yet been developed. We believe a database needs to be feasible and realistic, and we look forward to continuing conversations on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's hear from any other opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we will now move on to witnesses in support or opposite to testify via the teleconference. Moderator, would you please prompt individuals? This is for SB 363.

Thank you, Madam Chair, if you are in support or opposition to SB 363, please take this opportunity and press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. And we will go to line 51, you are open.

[Unintelligible] ...with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also known as NAMI California, another proud co-sponsor of the bill, in support. Thanks.

Next is line 25. You are open.

Hey, this is Lily Kotansky from the National Association of Social Workers California chapter, and we are in support.

Line 32, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Corey Hashida with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Line 55, you are open.

Hello, Chair and Members. Caroline Cirrincione, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

And we'll give a final reminder if you would like to express support or opposition to SB 363, please press 1-0 at this time. Line 54, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Julie Nielsen with the National Union of Healthcare Workers, in support.

And line 24, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of Mayor Karen Goh and the City of Bakersfield and the City of Carlsbad, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have no other participants queued up.

Thank you. At this time, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any comments, questions? There is a motion. Would you like to close- Senator Roth?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Obviously, there's some details that need to be worked out with the behavioral health folks as to the database issues, but I just want to express my strong support for this measure and thank the author for continuing to come back to the well to try to take a drink and get the measure through. Unfortunately, in many parts of our state, in many counties, there are not very many beds to track right now.

But that's going to change with the governor's Behavioral Health Infrastructure Initiative and other initiatives adding capacity around the state. I think it will be ever more important to track capacity, to make it easy and effective and efficient to place people where they need to be, when they need to be there in order to protect health. Certainly in the EMS system, we've managed to track capacity at hospitals for years. Obviously, different situation, different circumstances.

But I think, given that track record, we ought to be able to crack this nut as well and track capacity in these facilities. So I'll be voting aye and thank the author.

Thank you. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. And just thank the Committee for hearing this bill. And to the opposition, we certainly intend to- Our goal is for, if there's problems, for it to be corrective and not coercive, and to work collaboratively. Samsung has some really nice outlines about best practices and what to put in place to make sure it's as smooth as possible. So, again, it just seems like the right idea at the right time to really be able to streamline our entire continuum of care.

And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. The motion is do passed and to re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Please call for the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we're going to hold that roll open on this, and that was all the bills that we had for today. So at this point, we're going to reopen. So if you voted on everything, you're free to go. But we are going to reopen the roll for those Members who were not here on SB 476, Senator Limon. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We're going to put that bill back on call. Let's call the roll for SB 299, Eggman.

[Roll Call]

Okay, I'm going to hold that open one more time, and let's have, for SB 363, Eggman.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and then for the Consent Calendar, we could call the roll on that one more time.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you very much. And we're going to hold that open a little bit longer. I understand Senator Grove is on her way.

Okay, we're going to reopen the roll on SB 476, Limon. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

You're good. All right. And that bill is out. SB 299, Eggman.

[Roll Call]

11, right? 11-0. That bill is out. And Senator Eggman, SB 363.

[Roll Call]

11-0. That bill is out, and let's take up the Consent Calendar here at the final.

[Roll Call] 11-0

The consent bill passes 11-0 and is out. And that concludes the first policy hearing of Health of 2023.