Assembly Standing Committee on Insurance

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on insurance. Today we're going to consider five bills, and I wanted to note that item number five was pulled by the author from today's hearing. We going to start as a Subcommitee and at this time we'll call our first author, Assembly Member Maienschein.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 1145 would establish a rebuttable presumption that post traumatic stress disorder suffered by nursing staff who provide direct care to prison inmates and state hospital patients is a workplace injury. These state nurses, psychiatric technicians, social service specialists, and various medical specialists provide direct care to inmate and patient populations that have committed oftentimes serious and violent felonies or have severe mental illnesses that make them a danger to themselves or others. Nursing staff are most often the direct recipients of assaultive behavior.

Their daily tasks likely involve repetitive verbal and emotional abuse, physical threats, and witnessing or being the targets of horrific violent assaults. The toll this abuse takes on their psychological and physical health can undoubtedly produce psychological injury, including PTSD. Unfortunately, the burden falls upon the nurse to prove their psychological injury resulting from a workplace injury. Nursing staff deserve to receive the benefits of workers comp without undue burden so they can heal from psychological trauma they may endure during their jobs. Here to testify in support of AB 1145 is Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, I am Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We represent about 6,000 licensed and certified mental and behavioral health nurses. They're called psych techs, that work in state prisons, state hospitals, and forensic developmental centers. We are the sponsors of AB 1145. As the Member said, CAPT Members are the largest direct level care providers in the Department of State Hospitals.

We have approximately 3,600 members in which there were 2,700 assaults on staff last year with psych techs being and making up 85% of that population. Additionally, there are no hospital police officers or correctional officers on the units in state hospitals. So when a patient-on-patient assault occurs, it is the psych tech or RN or LVN or CNA that has to intervene and break up the assault.

So we are not just nurses. We are also there to break up incidences that can arise that turn violent and often cases severe with injuries. But there are other claims that need to be addressed here. Last year, there was 1,251 workers compensation claims for psychiatric technicians, 33 of which resulted in the nurse not being able to return to the profession. Additionally, we have claims where it's not an assault that has happened it's something else horrific was seen and experienced by the nurse.

For instance, on March 9, 2019, a psych tech at Corcoran State prison made the shocking discovery of a heinous crime committed by inmate Jamie Osuna. The prisoner decapitated and dissected his cellmate's body and fashioned a necklace made of the victim's organs. It was a psych tech that discovered this traumatic incident. She filed for a claim, and it took 18 months for that claim to be approved. All the while, the nurse was decompensating and not receiving treatment.

When police officers and first responders, like firefighters, report to a tragic scene, the tragedies and the acts of heroism are captured for public consumption by personal cell phones, news cameras, and journalists. This is not the case for the nurses in our state hospitals and prisons. Their trauma and acts of heroism are unseen. They're endured behind the closed and locked doors in our state institutions.

The nursing staff in our state institutions are not armed with batons, pepper spray, or even defensive tactics trainings to protect themselves when attacked. The inmates and the patients that our nurses care for have a criminogenic behavior pattern as well as a psychosis, making them incredibly dangerous and challenging to treat. The nursing professionals in these institutions endure trauma behind lock and key as a condition of their employment. The nurses deserve to receive the benefits of workers compensation without the undue burden so they can heal from their psychological injuries with dignity. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Any public comment? No, seeing none. Okay. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Do you have any questions for the author. Mr. Rodriguez?

Bill--that we need to protect our healthcare workers out there, depending whatever kind of setting there are. The stories you just talked about brings back to memories when I worked in the ambulance industry. We bring patients to some of these facilities. It was total chaos, right? But now, more than ever, we're changing things. And with this bill to protect those workers, right, we've got to make sure we have everything on board to protect them and take care of them during work and after work, so to speak. So I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and look forward to supporting it.

Thank you. All right, Mr. Maienschein, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. So we're operating as a Subcommitee. At the appropriate time, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you. Assemblymember Gipson, are you ready to present? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 844 which seeks to support the rapid development of lean heavy duty trucks. Before I start, I want to thank the Committee for all their hard work. I will be accepting the amendments to help clarify the data collection process. Through this bill, the California Department of Insurance will look for availability and affordability of insurance for heavy duty trucks.

As California goes green, we need account for these sooner to be owned of these zero emissions minimum heavy vehicles. It will not be a cheap process. We know that because of the technology that exists. We need to consider the average truck drivers with his family who is trying to make ends meet, many of which are in my district and also your district. This is why Assembly Bill 844 is so important.

Specifically, California continues to work to develop rules and incentives to achieve 100% zero emission truck fleet over the next decade. This bill will ensure that truck manufacturers, producers, and sales will make available affordable zero admissions mid-size heavy duty trucks. New technology without long history of data and insurance information can face challenges as a result. Fleets developing zero admission technology may be faced with a limited market of insurance, which could slow down the development of zero admission heavy duty trucks.

The State of California has come up with a deadline for fleets to transition to new zero admission technology. Insurance availability and affordability could be a factor in the speeding of this transition taking place in the State of California. Potential barriers for new insurance options and data gaps should be addressed to streamline the transition and support California's aggressive goals. This is the goal of Assembly Bill 844 before you today.

Joining me to support and provide technical assistance and questions is a representative representing our California State Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara's office.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Calderon, Vice Chair Essayli, and Members of the Committee. I am Mike Peterson and I serve as Deputy Commissioner for Climate and Sustainability at the California Department of Insurance. As the sponsor for AB 844, Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara would like to thank Assembly Member Gipson for his leadership in authoring this important measure that will equip the department with necessary data for working with the Air Resources Board to understand potential barriers to available insurance for zero emission truck fleets.

Clear zero emission targets, existing ARB regulations, and the technological advances are fueling California's goal of a net zero carbon future. In just the past five years, the state Legislature and governor have enacted budgets that have invested over $1.0 billion in incentives to accelerate the development of zero emission medium and heavy duty trucks, accelerating progress towards California's 2030 goals and beyond, as reflected in the Committee's analysis.

In 2020, the Airway Resources Board approved its advanced clean trucks regulation, ensuring that truck manufacturers produce and sell zero emission, medium and heavy duty trucks in our state, which is anticipated to result in 100,0000 zero emission trucks by 2030 and 320,000 by 2035.

In 2021, the Air Resources Board initiated the Advanced Clean Fleet regulatory process that will increase the number of zero emission vehicles at our ports and rail yards by 2035, and the latest draft of the advanced Clean Fleet Regulation would end the sale of combustion powered trucks in California by 2036. However, as with nearly all emerging technologies, there is limited data on the current commercial insurance market for heavy duty zero emission trucks and fleets.

So, specifically, AB 844 would allow the department to collect timely and relevant information on the availability of insurance for this marketplace and the role of insurance in meeting emission reduction targets, including the deployment of zero emission technologies. Commissioner Lara believes that reducing emissions from trucks and other mobile pollution sources saves lives and benefits the health of many of California's most vulnerable neighborhoods and communities living near transportation corridors, including those communities in the author's district.

Many of these communities have been impacted by poor air quality for years, and reducing heavy duty truck pollution with the development of zero emissions technologies is urgent for addressing these public health impacts. AB 844 will support this important effort with the data collected by the Department of Insurance used to create a strategy to help support an accelerated transition to zero emission technologies while addressing current and future gaps for ensuring this technology.

This will help protect consumers and ease the adoption process as we invest in developing these new technologies. As deployment of heavy duty trucks and fleets rapidly increases to meet California's goals, smaller fleets or certain technologies could face some barriers to insurance accessibility. AB 844 provides a forward-looking approach to identifying and addressing any potential insurance barriers.

Using the data specified in this bill, the department will be able to aggregate important loss and policy data which could inform and encourage insurance companies that can offer these commercial insurance products to, in turn, help meet our state help our state meet its clean air and emissions goals. I respectfully request your aye vote on AB 844, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to take a brief pause here to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

All right. Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing none. Do we have anybody for public comment?

Thank you Chair, Members. My name is Noah Whitley, and on behalf of CALSTART, we are in support of this bill.

All right, thank you. Do we have any questions from Committee Members? Thank you. Okay. Please call the roll.

File item number one. AB 844. Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Gipson.

Okay, can we go back and call the roll for. zero, actually, aye need a motion a second on AB. Thank you. On 1145.

File item number two. AB 1145 motion is do pass to appropriations. Calderon aye. Essayli aye. Berman, Cervantes, Chen, Vince Fong aye. Gipson aye. Grayson, Jones-Sawyer. Ortega aye. Rodriguez aye. Soria, Valencia aye. Wood aye.

All right. Thank you. And I see we have assemblywoman Papan here. We're perfect timing, assemblywoman. Come on up whenever you're ready.

I try. I thought I was ahead of the game, which is very rare. Good morning.

Thank you for having me. Okay, I'm here on 85. 75. I love this Bill. I know we all love our bills, but I love this Bill. There we go. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Okay. Assembly Bill 575 simply removes unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking to access their paid family leave. Over 20 years ago, California became the first state in the nation to enact a paid family leave program.

California paid family leave provides workers with partial wage replacement when they take leave from work to provide care for a family Member in specific circumstances. While California has led the nation in implementing paid family leave and is taking meaningful steps to make the program more equitable, workers still face certain barriers in accessing the paid family leave benefits that they contribute to. AB 575 will remove unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking to access their paid family leave benefits in three ways.

Number one, it will remove the provision preventing more than one caregiver from receiving paid family leave to care for the same family Member at the same time. Second, AB 575 will make paid family leave available for child bonding when a guardian newly assumes responsibility for a child in local parentis. Finally, AB 575 will remove the provision of paid family leave that allows employers to require employees to use two weeks of accrued vacation before they receive their paid family leave benefits.

These updates will allow workers to access the support they need without placing any additional requirements on California. Employers with me today is my favorite witness.

I'm Julia Parish, senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work, proud co sponsor of this Bill. Legal aid at Work is a statewide nonprofit dedicating to empowering workers, their families, and parents and caregivers with serious health conditions.

As part of this work, we run the work and family helpline and hear from over 1000 workers a year, often because they're facing barriers accessing paid family leave and without paid family leave, they have to choose between taking leave or losing out on their income, harming the family's economic stability, or continuing to work despite the family's need for them to be there and provide care.

Paid family leave is a program administered by the EDD that provides workers with partial income when they take time off for a loved one who is seriously ill to address certain military exodus or to bond with the new child. It is paid for 100% by contributions that workers make from their own paychecks. Employers do not contribute to the program, but some workers aren't able to access it like they should. AB 575 addresses these barriers that we've seen come up time and time again on our helpline.

First, AB 575 would make it possible for more than one family Member to receive paid family leave at a time. Currently, to get paid family leave, a worker needs to certify that no other family Member could provide care. But when a parent is dying or a child is receiving chemotherapy, it's important to have more than one family Member be able to be there. AB 575 would make this possible.

Second, it would make it possible for loving adults who assume care for a child during a time of distress to access paid family leave income to bond with that child. Currently, those who stand in local parentis, which means in place of a parent can access paid family leave within one year of the child's formal adoption or formal foster care placement. But absent of formal legal placement, if somebody assumes guardianship, they cannot access paid family leave. We've had two recent examples of this on our helpline.

One, a grandmother who took in her eight year old grandson when his mother was in a very terrible car accident. He had to move to a different state, but she was still unable to take paid family leave to help him with that adjustment into her home. The second example was an aunt who assumed care for her niece while her sister was struggling with substance use issues.

Again, it was absent of formal foster care placement, and so that aunt was unable to access paid family leave to help her niece adjust during that very difficult time. AB set 575 would right these wrongs finally, it would allow workers to access the benefit without being forced to use accrued vacation because this is a benefit that they pay for out of their own paychecks. These modest changes would make a significant positive impact for all families. So we urge your. aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses in support?

Good hi, good morning. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in support. And also on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council here in support.

Good morning. Katie Duberg on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition and the following organizations in strong support: Caring Across Generations, the California WIC Association, Friends Committee on Legislation of California and Public Council. Thank you.

Good morning. Denita Stromgrun, AARP, a volunteer with AARP California Capital Response team in support of AB 575. Thank you.

Good morning. Jenna Shankman, on behalf of Family Caregiver alliance and the California Coalition on Family caregiving in support. Thanks.

Hi, Shannon Olivieri Hovis, on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California in support.

Hello. Elena Chavez with Teach Training and Early Abortion for Comprehensive Health care in support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses? In opposition? Seeing none. Any public comment? In opposition? Seeing none. Okay. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions for the author?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing AB 575. I was unaware of this and certainly appreciate your leadership by one exposing the inefficiencies in terms of within our process, in terms of paid leave. This is absolutely important for those who, as you described, needs this kind of support and should not be disenfranchised because of taking in a loved one or adoption or things of that nature.

And so I would like for you to consider me as being a co author of the Bill, if you would. I'll be honored to support this Bill when it gets to the floor, as well as well as here. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions for the author? No? Okay. Would you like to close?

Respectfully request an aye vote this is doing good.

Yes. Good Bill. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number three. AB 575 Papan, motion is do pass to appropriations. Calderon aye. Essayli aye. Berman aye. Cervantes. Chen. Vince Fong aye. Gipson aye. Grayson. Jones-Sawyer aye. Ortega aye. Rodriguez aye. Soria. Valencia aye. Wood aye.

Okay, we're waiting for authors. So we're waiting for Assemblywoman Wicks and Assemblywoman Petrie Norris.

While we wait, we're going to go ahead and do add ons.

File Item Number One: AB 844. [Roll Call]. File Item Number Two: AB 1145. [Roll Call].

Good morning.

Good morning. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, and apologies for keeping you waiting. So, pleased to be here today to present AB 571, which aims to reduce barriers that health care providers face when trying to offer reproductive health services here in California. Since the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, one in three women in America has lost access to abortion services. This means that more and more women from other states are coming to California in need of reproductive care.

And as we all know, we have taken steps to ensure that women in California were working to protect and expand access to reproductive health care, but we also recognize that rights without actually real access are meaningless. And one of the major barriers right now to access is the cost and availability of liability insurance for health care providers. Physicians and other reproductive health care providers report being charged arbitrary surcharges or even denied liability insurance altogether because they offer abortions or gender-affirming care.

This bill prohibits that discrimination and will help ensure that health providers are able to obtain liability insurance and serve their patients. And just to be clear, this bill certainly does not mandate any specific charge for providing liability insurance, and we continue to certainly respect the fact that charges need to be set with actuarial analysis. We just want to ensure that access to coverage, and therefore access to care, continues to be available for women across California. So with that, I'm pleased to introduce my two witnesses, Flor Hunt from TEACH and Dr. Yen Truong from the American College of Gynecologists.

Okay. Thank you to the Committee for this attention today to this bill, and thank you to Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. My name is Dr. Yen Truong. I practice maternal fetal medicine in the Bay Area, also known as perinatology, and I take care of patients with high-risk pregnancies. I'm also the Co-Chair of the Legislative Committee for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in District Nine or California, and we are proud to cosponsor AB 571.

In my day to day practice, I do not perform abortions or gender-affirming care, but many of my colleagues do. And just as lots of patients and people in California do not need abortions or gender-affirming care, this bill affects everyone. And in a time where states across the country are banning evidence-based, life-saving abortion and gender-affirming care, I'm proud that California seeks to protect access to this care.

We have made great strides to enshrine the right to abortion in our state constitution and reduce barriers for patients to receive this care, but hand in hand with these actions, we should also find ways to reduce barriers to physicians and other health care providers to providing this evidence-based and appropriate care. And this is where AB 571 plays an important role. As an OB-GYN, my colleagues and I already pay a lot in medical liability insurance.

And according to recent research, we have seen where physicians must often purchase costly abortion riders on their liability insurance and are concerned that that could happen here. Evidence suggests that the large premiums for abortion riders are not proportional to the true liability risk of providing this care. The medicine that we provide is evidence-based, but with all medical care, it also comes with potential risk. However, what is not risky is providing abortion or gender-affirming care. Abortions are very safe procedures.

They are most commonly not performed in a hospital or an operating room. Most commonly, they're performed in my office or even in the patient's home if they choose to have a medication abortion. The current difficulty some physicians and other licensed providers have in securing professional liability insurance has impacted the number of otherwise eligible practitioners who could offer these desperately needed services, especially as California is providing more and more of these services. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is proud to sponsor and ask for your support of AB 571, and thank you for your time and attention today.

Good morning, Chair Calderon, Members of the Committee. My name is Flor Hunt. I'm the Executive Director of TEACH: Training and Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare, and proud cosponsor of this bill. As an organization that has over 20 years of experience of training the next generation of reproductive health champions through abortion training and mentorship, we see this new post-war reality presenting novel and dangerous threats to expanding the workforce, and particularly to our graduates and alums.

For the first time, anti-abortion and anti-trans laws threaten to penalize medical professionals beyond their own state borders. So they're actually reaching into states where abortion and gender-affirming health care are legally protected. So that's why I'm so thrilled to be working with Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris on this important California Future of Abortion Council bill. AB 571 will ensure that licensed health care providers are not discriminated against.

They're not denied professional liability insurance or charged unfair premiums and additional fees just because they're providing abortion, contraception, and gender-affirming care. Last year, the Legislature and the Governor passed a historic bill package and a 200,000,000 dollar investment to expand abortion access and protect patients and providers. And this bill builds on that momentum, it protects existing providers, and it removes barriers for integration for new providers like the TEACH graduates who, without liability insurance, aren't able to provide this essential health care.

Aspiring abortion providers face many barriers when they're seeking to integrate abortion into their scope of practice, and this is particularly true for family physicians. Professional liability insurance should not be one of those barriers. AB 571 is necessary to protect health care providers like Family Doctor Dr. Gomez, who is an abortion provider. She cares for patients who are coming to California from other states, and she worries that frivolous lawsuits in other states are going to impact her professional liability insurance.

But it also helps aspiring providers like Certified Nurse Midwife Carrasco or Dr. Priam, our current fellow, because it ensures that they are going to be able to provide gender-affirming care and abortion within the scope of their professional liability insurance. So I urge you to vote 'a' on AB 571 so that California has the strongest reproductive health workforce in the country, capable of caring for everybody that needs care in our state. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room?

Shannon Olivieri Hovis, on behalf of NARAL Pro-Choice California. We're a sponsor of the bill in support. Thank you.

Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in strong support.

Michelle Teran-Woolfork, on behalf of the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls, in strong support.

Good morning. On behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association, sponsor of the bill, we ask you for your support.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association, proud cosponsor.

On behalf of the San Francisco Black and Jewish Unity Coalition, the National Health Law Program, and TEACH, in support, and on behalf of Dr. Sky Lee and Dr. Jen Hastings, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in support.

Hi. Good morning. Tiyesha Watts with the California Academy of Family Physicians, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition to the bill? Any witnesses in opposition? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Do you have any questions for the author? Okay, go ahead.

Good morning.

Good morning.

I guess the issue I have with the bill is everything I've heard is speculative. You can't cite a single doctor who's been denied coverage. I read the Committee reports. Since there's no clear basis for the need of this bill, there's no evidence that's been provided to the Committee that suggests practitioners are currently being denied or unable to receive mental practice insurance.

And the risks or the concerns about the cost of insurance are regulated by the Commissioner. He determines the rates and controls those prices. So I don't really understand the need for this bill. Am I missing something?

Well, thank you so much for that question, Assembly Member. So I would say two things. Number one: we have received reports that physicians and reproductive health care providers are being charged surcharges. I think it meets an immediate need. And to your point, that it's speculative, I think that the reality right now is that we have to ensure that we're taking action to protect Californians and Californians' access to care against emerging threats that we see all across the country right now. And the reality is, I wish we didn't have to anticipate those threats, but the notion that those are not real and that those are merely speculative is simply incorrect.

So it's more of a prophylactic measure? I guess I just--

I think it's both prophylactic but also responsive, as I said, to reports that we have received, that physicians are being charged or charges--and I don't know if you want to add anything to my comment or Flor.

I think you had some specific examples.

So we spoke with Dr. Christine Dehlendorf, who did the initial study in 2008, collecting evidence of the ways in which particularly family physicians who are trained in obstetrics but aren't necessarily doing labor and delivery were being denied care or being asked--or sorry--being denied professional liability insurance for abortion and particularly for medication abortion, which is much lower risk analysis, right?

And she said that there has not been subsequent research done. She said that there is no evidence that any action has been taken to correct that. And then we also received anecdotal evidence from individual providers who shared with us their challenges in accessing malpractice insurance, and I think this is particularly true for folks who do not work at an abortion clinic but are family physicians who are trying to incorporate abortion within the scope of primary care.

And I think it's really important to understand why that is important. Patients deserve to receive care from a provider that they know and trust, and there's no reason, particularly for such a low-risk procedure, that they should have to be referred out. But in order for them to do so, their malpractice insurance has to cover--their liability insurance has to cover abortion.

And what we have heard--again, anecdotally because there has not been a wide peer reviewed study done since this study that was published in 2018--is that, for example, when they were trying to add liability insurance for abortion, that the price that they were quoted was the equivalent of their malpractice insurance for the year.

But if I may, we don't set rates. That's the Insurance Commissioner. So I think you've answered my question. If there's concerns about the rates that are being charged, I think that's a question for the Insurance Commissioner, but I appreciate your position, and I think from a philosophical standpoint, I'd like to have a real issue before I legislate, but thank you for bringing the bill.

Thank you.

Do we have any other comments or questions for the author? Mr. Gipson?

First of all, I want to say thank you very much to the author for bringing Assembly Bill 571 before us today. I think it's a very proactive approach you're taking, and thank the witnesses for articulating their particular point. Certainly, California leads the country, and this is another step in protecting women's rights. This is another step in terms of protecting their health care perspective moving forward.

And I think that, to the author, for again, taking this approach and anticipating what is taking place, we want to make sure that we place our women in a good space, especially when it comes down to their health care because their health care is being challenged in so many different ways. So I want to say thank you very much, and I would like you, if you could please consider me as a coauthor of this bill. Hopefully, I'm the only man, but it's okay. That works, too. But please do consider me as an ally and a supporter.

Thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, and, yes, it'd be an honor to add you as a coauthor.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? All right. Assemblywoman, I'd like to thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think it's a good bill, and I, too, would love to be added as a coauthor, and I'll let Mr. Jones--

I'd also like to be added as coauthor.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Thank you. You may close.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate your support and honor to add you as a coauthor, and with that, I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. Secretary, please call the roll.

File Item Number Four: AB 571. Motion is 'do pass to Judiciary.' [Roll Call].

Okay. That gets out. Thank you so much. Assemblywoman Wicks, we're ready for you whenever you are.

Thank you. That's my close. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members, and Committee staff. Due to cultural, economic, and social forces, the overwhelming majority of households today depart from our sort of 1950s version of a nuclear family of a married couple and their children.

Instead, they increasingly include chosen family or loved ones who are not biologically or legally related. However, California's paid family leave program reflects an outdated nuclear family model and only allows workers to receive partial income replacement to care for certain narrowly defined family Members. Aging adults rely on a wide network of relationships for caregiving. Many caregivers are partners or friends.

Among Americans who provide care to an adult aged 65 or older, more than 23% provide care for a close friend or a relative that's not in their nuclear family or an unrelated person. This Bill, or also, by the way, partners who live with you who are not legally tied to you. This Bill would essentially modernize our definition of who can qualify for the California Paid Family Leave Program to ensure that we are reflecting, indeed, the modern times that we live in.

This Bill is supported by the California Lawyers Employment Association as the co sponsor, equal rights advocates as co sponsors, and legal aid at work, also as co sponsored, as well as the California School Employees Association and a number of organizations.

And I just want to say this Bill, I think, is particularly important for our LGBTQ community in terms of the family dynamics that they are creating, the chosen family, as well as a lot of our newer immigrant families who have aunties and uncles who care for loved ones who won't be able to qualify for the Paid Family Leave Program. I also want to thank Assembly Member Grayson for joining on as a co author to the measure, and I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And today, with me here to testify is Jessica Stender, the policy Director and deputy legal Director for the Equal Rights Advocates, as well as Julia Parish from Legal Aid at Work, to read an impact statement from a worker in California.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, a proud co sponsor of this Bill. As you've heard, this Bill provides a simple fix to our Paid Family Leave Program to ensure that the definition of family is aligned with that of the California Family Rights Act. It specifically updates the definition to ensure that workers who need to take time off for either chosen family members or extended family, like aunt uncle Cousins, are able to access this program that they pay into.

As you, I'm sure, know, almost all private sector employees and many public sector employees pay into the system via paycheck deductions. It's fully employee funded. There's no employer money in the system, and workers depend on it, especially low wage workers. But really, workers of most wages depend on it to be able to actually take this time off to care for family members. It's administered by the EDD fully.

There is no employer role in administration of this program, and although it's paid into by workers, as you've heard, a lot of workers can't actually access the benefits when they're taking care of the family that they rely on and that needs their care. And as you've also heard, the outdated family definition affects a lot of workers, but especially LGBTQ workers, who are often needing to take time off for chosen family and be cared by for chosen family.

Also, aging adults rely on a wide network of chosen family, such as neighbors and friends and others to take care of them. And then finally, California has a large number of extended families living in multigenerational households where you may need to take time off for one of those aunts, uncles, cousins where you can't currently get those benefits. Last year, California made very important progress with AB 1041, ensuring that workers have the right to take that time off for chosen and extended family.

Now we just want to make sure that they're able to get that wage replacement from the system they pay into to be able to actually access that leave. For these reasons, we urge your I vote. Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm Julia Parish, but I'm here to share the testimony of Yvette Cervantes, who is a resident of Orange County, a volunteer at the LGBTQ center of OC, and also a Member of the California Work and Family Coalition. My mother will be 83 this year and has lived with her partner for over 26 years. This person takes her to the doctor, runs errands, and helps with groceries. Everything a married couple would do, except they are not married.

Three of my children also have partners that they are not married to. One of my children's friends calls me mom and I have a very close bond with him. He left home at a very young age due to an abusive situation and was unhoused for a long time. We talk all the time. I helped give him a party when he graduated with his masters, and he calls me when upset or when happy. We laugh, joke, and cry together.

I never adopted him and he is not my child by blood. However, he is still my child to me. When he became very ill, I could not take time off work because financially I could not afford to. Because he is my chosen family the Paid Family Leave Program does not currently see him in the same way that I do. All of the relationships I described are in my own family.

If I needed time away from work to care for our loved ones, we would not qualify for paid family leave. We would be forced instead to take care of our loved ones without pay or we would have the option to not go to work and get compensated. Relationships that are not recognized by the law are no less committed or meaningful.

Chosen family is just as important and sometimes life saving when it comes to those who are part of the LGBTQ community and had to find love and acceptance from people because their own families rejected them. Please vote yes on AB 518 today to ensure that families like mine can use paid family leave to care for each other.

Thank you. Do we have any additional public support in the room?

Shannon Olivieri Hovis, on behalf of NARAL Pro Choice California in support.

On behalf of Teach Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare in support.

Good morning.

My name is Sheila Ellis and I am part of the California Capital Response Team.

And California AARP strongly support AB 518. Thank You.

Katie Duberg, on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition, proud co sponsor of AB 518, also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support of AB 518, Caring Across Generations, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California WIC Association, the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Grace and Child Poverty in California, the National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles, Public Council and Small Business Majority. Thank you.

Morning, James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jenna Shankman, on behalf of Family Caregiver Alliance and The California Coalition on Family Caregiving in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ruth Dawson with the ACLU, California Action and strong support. Thank you.

Greg Polsfer, Quality California strong support.

Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in strong support.

Good morning. Kristen Heidelbach on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in strong support.

Good morning. Molly Robeson with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition to this Bill? Okay, seeing none. Any public opposition? Okay, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee. Do you have any questions for the author, Mr. Wood?

I just want to thank you, Senator Wicks, for bringing this Bill forward. Like to be added as a co author. I live with my girlfriend. We have for quite a while and under the law, if something were to happen to her and I need to take care of her, I wouldn't be able to do it and still do my job. So thank you.

I would love to have you as a co author, Mr. Wood.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to thank our colleague for bringing this Bill, important Bill forward. We know that we need to be mindful and be more inclusive of all families, especially thinking about our LGBTQ community, who are more than likely impacted by not expanding this definition of Paid Family Leave.

So really appreciate the testimony and the support from the several organizations across the state, and thank you for leading, and I'd love to be added as a co author.

Great. Thank you. I'll take as many co authors as I can get. Anyone else. Great. Mr. Gipson. Mr. Berman. All right. Okay.

Would you like to close?

Would you respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I, too, would like to be added as a co author.

Thank you.

Secretary call the roll.

File item number six, AB 518, Wicks. Motion is due, passed two. Appropriations? Calderon?

Aye.

Calderon, aye. Essayli?

Not voting.

Essayli, not voting. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Chen? Chen, not voting. Vince Fong? Vince Fong, not voting. Gipson? Gipson, aye. Grayson? Grayson aye. Jones-Sawyer? Jones-Sawyer, aye. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Rodriguez? Rodriguez, aye. Soria? Valencia? Valencia, aye. Wood? Wood, aye.

Okay, that gets out. Thank you.

If only it was always that easy?

Yes. All right, we're going to do add ons right now. As secretary, please call the role.

File item number one, AB, 844. Cervantes?

Aye.

Cervantes, aye. Chen? Chen aye. Grayson? Grayson, aye. Soria? File, item number two, AB, 1145. Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Chen? Chen, aye. Grayson? Grayson, aye. Soria? File, item number three AB 575. Cervantes? Cervantes, aye. Chen? Chen, aye. Grayson? Grayson, aye. Soria? File item number four AB 571.

Okay, insurance committees adjourned.