Assembly Standing Committee on Insurance

That she works.

Chair, Members of the committee, welcome to the Assembly Committee on Insurance. Today we will consider ten bills. Four of these bills are recommended consent.

I'd like to remind everybody that testimony will be limited to two witnesses per side, with a timeframe of two minutes each. We're going to start as a Subcommittee. We have an author, Senator Blakespear, would you like to come up? Good morning.

Thank you. Chair and colleagues, today I present SB 391, which would establish a rebuttable presumption that skin cancer, developed by California's wildlife officers and park rangers is associated with excessive sun exposure caused by their employment when they file a worker's comp claim. California Fish and Wildlife officers and state park rangers often work ten to 12 hours per day, with many of those hours spent under the sun.

This amounts to decades of sun exposure, which is the primary risk factor for skin cancer, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer and the World Health Organization, under current state law, this rebuttable presumption is only extended to lifeguards who are employed by state and local governments. This is a profession that similarly involves significant sun exposure. Unfortunately, the presumption is not provided to our wildlife officers and park rangers.

SB 391 will rectify this issue to make it easier for these public servants to access workers compensation when they are facing skin cancer. With me in support is Captain Patrick Foy from the Fish and Game Warden, Supervisors and Managers Association, and I'd like to invite him to say a few words if that's okay with the chair. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. My name is Patrick Foy. Madam Calderon, Members, I represent the Fish and Game Wardens, Supervisors and Managers Association, sponsors of SB 391, along with the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. A friend of mine, a patrol partner and fellow game warden named Alan Weingarten, developed melanoma over the course of his career due to occupational exposure to the sun. This is about 15 years ago.

And Alan developed the melanoma. He fought it. He filed a worker's comp claim, and that claim was denied. He was in the throes of a battle for his life while he had to hire a private attorney and sue the workers comp system. And ultimately he prevailed, which was good news, because he did find out that he was successful in that reversal of the workers comp coverage, which gave his wife and children much better benefits because he lost his life, ultimately to the disease. I've been a captain with the Fish and Wildlife with the Department since 1997.

Since 2009, I've had six squamous cell carcinomas and one basal cell carcinoma, mostly on my arms and the back of my neck. I've had them all surgically removed by my private dermatologist because I just never thought that the workers comp system would be worth it because of what Allen went through. I've had five different tropical chemotherapy treatments on my face.

Also to prevent some of the lesions from becoming skin cancer. I filed a workers comp claim in earlier this year and on May 10 was notified by state compensation insurance fund that my claim was denied. They said it, quote, doesn't qualify under what is called a presumption for your employment.

Wildlife officers and park rangers, unlike 98% of the police officers out in California, we do not have the benefit of the rebuttable presumption. So the California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation, you might know them as Cheesewick, commissioned two UC San Francisco Occupational health physicians to assess whether or not wildlife officers and park rangers are at greater risk of skin cancer due to occupational exposure to the sun.

They wrote a 21 page report letter to the Legislature and among other things, it said the weight of the evidence is supportive of a causal relationship in the occupational setting. This is an equity issue for state wildlife officers and park rangers. Every police officer, sheriff's deputy, and highway patrol officer in the state of California has a presumption for all cancers. We were left out of that definition of a peace officer in that legislative code.

We are not asking for a presumption for all cancers. We are asking for a presumption for the cancer that afflicts us the most, which is skin cancer. So I respectfully request your aye vote.

Do you have another witness?

No, one witness.

Okay, additional support please come forward.

Good morning, Jennifer Roe, on behalf of. The California Statewide Law Enforcement Association in support.

Good morning, Jennifer Fearing on behalf of the California Wildlife Officers Foundation, the Monterey Bay Aquarium, the Nature Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation in support and also conveying the support of Oceania, the Planning and Conservation League and Friends of Fishing game. Thank you.

Morning, madam chair Members, Joe Devine with Platinum advisors, on behalf of the California Fish and Game Wardens Association, in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? See, none. I'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have any questions?

Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, Senator, I just want to tell you thank you for bringing this forward. I have worked in depth in this area as well on the firefighter and police side. In no way were any groups left out on purpose. So thank you for bringing this up. And this is very, very important especially to include those folks that are exposed and would have a work related issue with skin cancer. And with that I would just request, if you're willing to allow me to come on as a co author. Thank you.

Thank you. I would be delighted. We will add you.

Senator, we will take this up when we have quorum. And so would you like to close?

Well, the last thing I'd just like to say is just to put this in context of scale. So there are about 1000 game wardens and park rangers and there were two claims last year that were both denied. Just to understand what is going to be the effect of this, it's very important for the people who are facing it, but this isn't a large expansion of the workers comp system. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Sponsored by the California Applicants Attorney Association, SB 631 aims to address potential gender based disparities in workers compensation benefits. I believe it's essential to protect the rights of injured workers and ensure that they receive the benefits they're entitled to under the law. I'll remain steadfast in fighting for the rights of workers in California.

While the need is apparent, quantifying these inequalities is vital to igniting reform. This comparative analysis that we're asking for in the Bill will examine differences between industries, rate of claim, denial, compensation paid to identify any potential gender based disparities. By identifying and addressing those disparities in workers compensation benefits, SB 631 will help ensure that all employers I'm sorry, employees are fairly compensated for injuries sustained in the course of employment.

Overall, SB 631 is an important step toward promoting gender equity in the workplace and ensuring that all workers receive the benefits they're entitled to under the workers'compensation system. With me here today, former Assembly Member Alberto Torrico on behalf of the California Applicants Attorneys Association in support of the Bill. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I'll ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the committee. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the California Applicant Attorneys Association, sponsor of the legislation. Just a couple of points I wanted to highlight. First and foremost, I think it's an accepted fact that women make less than men.

If you compare them in the same qualification, same classification, same experience, all those factors, the women still make anywhere from $70 to $0.75 compared to a dollar for their male counterpart. Because workers compensations benefits are based on salary, that automatically results in lower benefits for women. This study, I think, will go a long way to quantifying this information and to assuring that we all understand, legislators in particular, understand the disparity.

Second, I would just point out from the analysis, I think the opposition will raise this as well, that they would prefer Cheswick to perform the study rather than the UC Berkeley Labor Study Center. I would just point out that in the last ten years, the applicant attorneys and others have introduced legislation dealing with gender equity when it comes to cancer and other injuries in the workplace. At no time in these last ten years has Cheswick shown any interest in the gender inequity issue.

We do have an interested party at the Labor Study Center perfectly equipped to do this. So we're very comfortable with the UC Labor studies performing this important analysis. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room, seeing none. Do we have any primary opposition? Thank you.

Hello, chair and Members. Faith Borges. On behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities here today with an in between position on SB 631.

We are opposed unless amended to the current text, but we would be pleased to support it if amended. I'd like to begin by sharing that Kajapa and our public employers emphatically support equality in all aspects of employment, including workers'compensation. You've seen us here many times stating that data is king or queen when it comes to workers'compensation.

And we are always in support of its pursuit to inform good public policy and improve outcomes for injured workers. For those reasons, we would be pleased to support the Bill if the analysis was conducted in the proper place. As was mentioned, we would prefer to see it done with the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers'compensation because it's a joint labor and management body with subject matter expertise.

There's not much that's simple within the California workers compensation system. But the current calculation of temporary and permanent disability is because it's based on one simple formula actual wages lost. There's no adjustment to benefits upon gender for any injured worker.

In addition to the criteria that's been discussed for this study. We would love to know the reason that claims are denied. We think this is an important component in understanding any data that's put forward.

For example, is it due to negative COVID tests, unconfirmed diagnosis? Did the injured worker refuse to sign a release of medical records? Not all claim denials are frictional. We appreciate the dialogue here today and look forward to ongoing conversations.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers' Compensation, Prism and the California Chamber of Commerce today as well.

I want to align my comments with those of Kajapa and just add we're always supportive of more data. You hear us in here frequently talking about the need for more data. So we would like to get to a place where we could support the Bill with respect to Cheswick.

We like Cheswick because they have labor and management folks on that commission. They were created by the state of California specifically for the purpose of evaluating the workers' compensation system and making recommendations to the Legislature. We find great value in the work that they do with respect to them having interest.

I think that the commission has always demonstrated that they're responsive to the Legislature, whether it's a letter from a Member of the Legislature, a chair, or a piece of legislation calling on a study. So I'm sure they would be responsive to a request if one were made. And with that, we respectfully are in opposition at the moment, but would like again to get to support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional opposition in the room? Please come forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the association of Claims Professionals and we share the same position as Kajapa and CCWC. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mark Sektnan American Property Casual Insurance Association We request the amendment so that it's studied by a workers comp expert. Thank you.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the committee. Do you have any questions for the author?

Thank you. You said the gender pay gap is a fact, correct?

I did say that, yes.

Okay. I just want to be clear. What you're doing is you're taking all money earned by men and comparing it to all money earned by women across the board?

No, that's not correct.

So, do you have examples where men and women on the same job, same experience, are being paid differently?

Yes, there's numerous studies that reflect that based on exact. You can never get exact unless people are hired at the same time, have the same experience. However, there are a number of studies across the country and in the state of California that demonstrate that there is a clear pay equity gap and that men are paid 25% to 30% more than women in the same position.

What's the name of the study?

I'll be happy to get it to your office.

You do acknowledge, though, it is illegal in California to treat men and women differently at the job place?

I do acknowledge it is illegal. I think you would agree that it's very challenging to enforce that.

I don't think so. I did employment litigation. If there's a woman in the workplace and she's being paid less in the same job as a man, she has every right to sue, and I encourage her to do so. This is nuanced conversation. I don't like it when we just say things are facts.

I think we need to actually look at the evidence and see what it comes back to. And if there's instances where women are being paid less than men for the same work, that needs to be addressed and sued. But I don't think we should just perpetuate what might be a false narrative. But with that, I yield back.

The purpose of the study is to verify that information, and we'll know soon enough.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions for the author? Assemblywoman Ortega.

Thank you for bringing this forward. And I would just like to state that as a woman, I know it's a fact that there is wage disparities and really appreciate what you're doing and trying to address this issue and highlight the concerns. Thank you.

Assemblyman Grayson, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for this work. I would assume one of my colleagues on the committee here would be very supportive, looking for facts and data. I, too, with my wife and daughter in professions, know for a fact that there are disparities.

Thank you. Assemblyman Jones-Sawyer.

And I want to thank you. I mean, one of the things, because of misrepresentations that went out about affirmative action and other things was about finding the facts. And there are individuals who do not want to see the facts because it unmasks.

And sometimes it unmasks what they really are and what their real intents are. Doing this, it stops the perpetuation of a lot of wrongs that are going on. But the most important thing is to find out not only what's going on, but how we can solve it, how we can then move beyond this, which I think we all agree we want to get beyond this, we're going to get beyond this, is doing studies like this.

So I applaud you for doing it. It's not always easy, but it's necessary. So thank you.

Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Appreciate all the comments from committee Members. And I, too, practiced law in the labor and employment field at one time, full time, and took on plaintiffs work.

We're trying to do what we can in the legislative branch, to quote a famous statesman from the past. We're trying to do what we can with what we have now, and this is what we can get done right now. I think with the support of this committee and, of course, with the support of our colleagues in both houses of the Legislature, we have tried, we have identified, I have identified very, very specific disparities in this area and gone after those with previous legislation.

And we get the response, perhaps righteously, from committees, from committee consultants, even from colleagues occasionally, and certainly from the insurance industry, that you need a study. You need a study to back up what it is specifically that you're targeting. I think what we've done here is concede that and come forward and say, this is an expert organization on the issue of equity.

On the issue of equity. They have all the expertise in the world on equity, and we're asking them to come back and let us know what their study will show in this regard. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote and thank you to the committee, by the way, for your help with this Bill.

You're welcome, Senator. And we'll take this up at the appropriate time, once we have a quorum.

Thank you. It's 630, madam chair.

Madam Chair, is is 636 up next? If not, I can sit down.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Well, thank you again in this case. Thank you for allowing me to present SB 636 to you today. SB 636 would require utilization review to be done by doctors licensed in California.

This would only apply to private workers compensation cases. The Bill would go into effect January 1, 2025. Utilization review is when a worker's comp insurance company reviews a treating physician's treatment recommendations.

They approve, modify, or deny treatment based on what they consider medically necessary. Under current law, doctors doing utilization review for workers comp cases do not have to be licensed in California. If a reviewer not licensed in California makes a decision that results in harm to a patient, that doctor is not accountable to the California Medical Board. This lack of accountability is a danger to patients. The idea is not new. The California Legislature has considered this issue three times before.

In 2008, 2010, and 2011, each of those bills would have required utilization review for all workers comp cases to be done by physicians licensed in California. All three were passed by the Legislature, but vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger and Governor Brown. While these pass bills applied to all workers, SB 636 applies only to private workers.

And that's a distinction between those bills and this Bill that I wanted to emphasize. By starting with a smaller group, we can demonstrate the benefits of this improved accountability. We can also open the door for this to be expanded to other workers later, if appropriate.

This Bill is co sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, the California Neurological Society. And ASME with us to testify today, we have Steve Katalica with the California Neurological Society and George Osborne with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. Thank you very much to the committee for your help and scrutiny of this proposal. This Bill, and at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, first witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. I'm George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. I want to thank Senator Cortese for bringing forward this important legislation. SB 636 would require utilization review for private workers compensation cases to be done by medical professionals licensed in California.

Insurance companies use utilization review to be able to deny a worker's compensation claim. Their ur doctors can modify or deny treatment with impunity doing the insurance company bidding because they are not subject to Medical Board of California rules or regulations. They are often in faraway states, acting as surrogates for the insurers.

If the ur doctor makes a recommendation harmful to the patient, they face no accountability in California for their actions. The California Legislature, as Senator Cortisi has said, has passed bills similar to SB 636 three times before. Each of these bills were vetoed by the sitting Governor at the time.

But times have changed. We have a different Governor, and we expect a different result this time when the Bill reaches the governor's desk. Respectfully request your aye vote for SB 636. Steve. Thank you.

Madam Chair, committee, Senator, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Steve Cattolica. I represent the California Neurological Society, co sponsors of SB 636. I pardon my back. SB 636 responds directly to a request made to the Legislature by the California Supreme Court in its opinion in King versus Comp Partners.

Citing the plenary power of the Legislature wields regarding the workers' compensation system, the court was compelled to find in favor of Comp Partners, the ur physician's employer. As a result, the court asked the Legislature to review the work comp ur process it had created, because, quote, the system may not be working as intended. SB 636 is a direct and positive response to the court's request of you.

The committee should understand this Bill is not, as some have alluded meant to question the competency or training of ur physicians, nor is it meant to undermine the clinical guidelines ur physicians use to delay or deny care. It's equally important to understand that the question asked by the court addressed a lack of recourse for injured workers when the Ur reviewer makes a poor decision, not necessarily the decision itself. In response, SB 636 provides a level of accountability for poor medical decisions, a level of accountability, if needed, that a court of law can rely on.

I close by stating that it is irrelevant whether a king case occurs once a day, once a week, or once in a lifetime. What is at issue and what is relevant is the fact California licensure can provide an effective safety net when harm comes to injured workers when the ur process goes awry. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation. Also in support.

James Michael Paulo, California proud co sponsor, in support. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. You're ready?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. If I could, before I get started, I just want to clarify a few statements that were made by the sponsors. First, Ur doesn't exist to.

Could you identify yourself, please.

Oh, excuse me. Yeah, sorry, I was jumping right into that, wasn't I? I'm rarely excitable. Jason Schmelzer on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation, Prism and the California Chamber of Commerce. Ur does not exist to implement the will of insurers with impunity. It exists to implement the will of the state Legislature and the Division of Workers Compensation that promulgated regulations to implement the standards that are in law.

They are national, peer reviewed medical standards that are intended to provide injured workers with appropriate care because there's a long history of inappropriate, harmful care being provided to injured workers to the benefit of some a very small number of medical providers. So it's intended to protect injured workers. I want to be clear about that.

And if that was what was happening, considering that the bulk of Ur doctors are actually licensed in California, what I would expect to see is a great number of enforcement actions being taken against those ur doctors that are apparently implementing the will of insurers with impunity. So with that being said, I would actually like to thank the author and the sponsors for the amendments that they took coming into this committee. The work that the committee did as well, removing the duty of care provision in the Bill.

It was extremely problematic. And we really do appreciate being heard and the sort of dialogue that occurred there. Second, we do remain opposed to the remaining provision in the Bill, mostly because we don't think it makes sense in the broader context of the workers compensation system.

But I'm not going to belabor the point briefly. We understand the approach being taken, the smaller piece based on the prior vetoes, and I think we appreciate that as a sort of strategy and approach to dealing with the issue. But it's sort of inescapable that this Bill does set up a very strange paradigm where you've got sort of one doctor in the middle of the entire system, the ur doctor that has to be California licensed, the treating physician making the recommendations.

The other providers wouldn't necessarily have to be California licensed. The IMR doctor that is reviewing the ur doctor's decisions wouldn't need to be California licensed. It's just that one doctor in the middle. We don't think that that makes a ton of sense in a broader policy perspective, and for those reasons, we're opposed to the Bill.

Thank you. Second witness.

Mark Sektnan with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. I think this is almost an intimidation factor for you. Our doctors, by threatening them with medical know there's an old saying on court cases that bad facts make it bad law. King the case that they're talking about was a bad case.

There was repensation. I think what we have to be aware of is that, as Jason said, most of the ur doctors are in fact actually licensed in California. When they're not, it's often because we can't find the specialties in terms of the small group. This only applies to private insurance. Well, that's 70% of the market. So you're not really hitting the small group.

You're also creating inequities to where ur doctors under one system can be threatened with medical board challenges and doctors in the other can't. And we think that's unfair. Let's go to some facts.

80% of the ur decisions are upheld through the system. When you go to IMR, which is the process that the Legislature put in to deal with these disputes, 91% of those cases are upheld. The system is working. Let's not tinker with it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition? Please state your name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair and Members, John Norwood on behalf of Zenith Insurance Company. We're opposed. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the association of Claims Professionals in respectful opposition.

John Kennedy with the rural county representatives of California in opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses. I turn it over to the committee. Any questions or comments? Yes, Mr. Grayson.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, just real quick, do we have data that shows how many cases currently are being heard by unlicensed or by physicians outside of the state? I may have missed that in your testimony.

You didn't miss it. It wasn't there. No. I don't know that there's any data that tells us how often a non California licensed physician interacts. But the Supreme Court was caught in a situation where it was very clear that that was the case and they couldn't do what they might have wanted to do otherwise.

Okay. And then also additional question sort of touched on or addressed. What is the thought behind making this particular and I'm coming into the meeting today supporting, but I just want to clarify what's the thought process behind making the utilization review physician licensed with the State of California, but then the independent medical review not licensed.

Let me say something about that. It seems to me that that's all the more reason for this Bill to go forward. I mean, as the opposition stated, we know, they seem to know that they're using out of state doctors who are not accountable to California Medical Board to make treatment recommendations.

They're not using them, but patients are. Claimants are. That may or may not be accountable to California Medical Board. So why not make sure that on the utilization review that's being reviewed by somebody, by a California doctor who is accountable to California Medical Board. So it really is an accountability Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Anyone else seeing? None. Senator, would you like to close?

I just want to point out something that is really kudos, if you will, to the committee staff on the analysis. One of the points opposition attempted to make, I think at least to Committee staff, or they got to Committee staff somehow, was that in the utilization review process, which we're not trying to change at all. There's no concern or question here about the framework of utilization review that the physicians and psychologists who are reviewing are not providing treatment to an injured worker.

They're just providing some kind of administrative review. But if you read a little further in the analysis, which I'm sure most Members and their staffs do, the California Medical Board turns right around and says, wrong. The fact of the matter is that utilization reviews directly related to the practice of medicine is intended to help determine whether a proposed treatment plan is medically necessary for an injured California worker.

Clearly, I'm a JD, a doctor of the law. I tell my kids sometimes if they have an ailment that's medical, I can't help you with that. If you've got a legal question, I could help you.

But I wouldn't even begin to put myself in the position of making a utilization review decision on a treatment plan that's considered medically necessary by an actual MD. Or let's just leave it at that, by an actual doctor. So I want to point that out and I want to thank the committee staff for drawing out that distinction, at least making sure it was here for everybody to see and to see what the California Medical Board is saying about that.

I do believe that we need competency and accountability at this utilization review stage. That's all the Bill is trying to do. And with that, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We're just going to take a quick pause here and establish a quorum. Please go ahead and call the role.

Calderon.

Present.

Calderon here. Essayli.

Essayli here. Berman. Cervantes.

Here.

Here.

Cervantes here. Chen.

Chen here. Vince Fong. Gipson. Grayson.

Here.

Here.

Grayson here. Jones-Sawyer.

Here

Jones-Sawyer here. Ortega.

Here

Ortega here. Rodriguez. Soria.

Here.

Soria here. Valencia. Wood.

Great. Do we have a motion on second? Thank you. Call the roll, please.

File item number three, SB six three six. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Calderon.

Aye.

Calderon aye. Essayli.

No.

Essayli no. Berman. Cervantes.

Aye.

Cervantes aye. Chen.

No.

Chen no. Vince Fong. Gibson. Grayson.

Aye.

Grayson aye. Jones-Sawyer.

Aye.

Jones-Sawyer aye. Ortega.

Aye.

Ortega aye. Rodriguez.

Soria. Aye. Soria, aye. Valencia. Wood.

Okay, next, we're going to take up SB 631, which is on call. Do we have a motion? Thank you. Please call the role.

File item number two, SB 631. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Essayli. Not voting. Essayli, not voting. Berman. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Chen. Chen, not voting. Vince Fong. Gipson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Rodriguez. Soria. Aye. Soria, aye. Valencia. Wood.

We'll leave the roll open on that one. Next, do we have a motion on SB 391 by Senator Blakespear? Thank you. Please call the roll.

File item number one, SB 391. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. Berman. Aye. Cervantes. Cervantes, aye. Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Vince Fong. Gipson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Rodriguez. Soria. Aye. Soria, aye. Valencia. Wood.

Okay, now, can I have a motion for the consent calendar, please? Thank you. Please call the roll.

Consent calendar. File item number six, SB 931, Glazer. File item number eight, SB 743, Nguyen. File item number nine, SB 479, Padilla. File item number ten, SB 505, Rubio. Motion is do pass to consent calendar. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. Berman. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Vince Fong. Gipson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Rodriguez. Soria. Aye. Soria, aye. Valencia. Wood.

Thank you. We'll leave the roll open. Next, we have SB 263 by Senator Dodd. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Today I'm presenting SB 263 pertaining to annuities and consumer protections. SB 263 would adopt the 2020 updates to the National Association of Insurance Commissioner Suitability and Annuity Transactions Model Act, as well as include additional consumer protections. The updated Model Act will help consumers understand the advantages of the products they purchase, understand any conflicts of interest, and ensure that the sale of annuity is made in the consumer's best interest. Based on feedback from stakeholders, the recent amendments that ensure that consumers' insurance and financial objectives are appropriately addressed. And I've been working with the California Department of Insurance, the insurance industry, including agents as well as consumer groups, to ensure this bill is effective as possible. Michael Martinez and Andrea Toth from the California Department of Insurance are here with me in support of this bill.

Good morning, Chair Calderon and members of the committee. Michael Martinez, Senior Deputy Commissioner, here on behalf of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara and the Department of Insurance. We're in strong support of this measure. Commissioner Lara is the proud sponsor of this bill and want to thank Senator Dodd for his leadership on this measure as well as with the committee staff in both houses and being able to continue to work on this measure and the amendments and the bill that we have here before your committee for consideration. More than three years ago, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners voted to update its suitability in annuity transactions model in response to egregious abuses and overly aggressive sales tactics occurring in the annuity market across the United States.

Commissioner Lara is a very active member of the NAIC and represents the state in which the most fixed annuities are sold nationwide. And so for the last few years, department staff and Commissioner Lara have worked with several other state regulators and consumer advocates to push for as high of a consumer protection standard as possible. Commissioner Lara ultimately voted in favor of the updated NAIC model law here to pass by the NAIC because it contained new significant consumer protections in annuity transactions on top of existing law, including existing law here in the State of California.

The bill you have before you today, Senate Bill 263, is a continued product of more than nearly two decades of now three major annuity suitability reforms seen in this state. Given this ongoing activity at the NAIC back in 2003, in 2012, which I had the honor to staff that measure back in the day, and now here today, with Senate bills 263. Pursuant to the federal Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, failing to adopt standards at least as strong as those in the NIAC model by 2025 will result in dual regulation with the federal government.

And that is something that we absolutely wish to avoid here in the State of California because insurance by and large is regulated at the state level across the nation. To date, 34 states have adopted versions of this model, thereby avoiding federal dual regulation of fixed annuities by those state's departments of insurance and the federal government. SB 263 most notably requires all recommendations for annuities made by insurance agents and insurance companies to be in the best interests of the consumer and that they may not place their financial interest ahead of the consumer's interest in making that recommendation.

This reform is essential in order to ensure insurers and licensed producers who sell annuities act in the best interests of the consumer during the recommendation, purchase and replacement of an annuity. As an extension of that as contained in the model and in proposed SB 263, insurers are required, and this is important in the bill. We are now going to eliminate any sales contests, sales quotas, prizes, and bonuses based on the sales of specific annuities within a limited period of time that is not currently in existing law here in California today and that is a major consumer protection that we are very excited to have here in this bill.

And we are doing that in order to ensure the consumers' best interests and help address some of the most egregious and numerous insurance abuses and overly aggressive sales tactics seen over the years. Commissioner Lara believes that California can and should do more to stop the financial abuse of our seniors and other vulnerable individuals, especially as it pertains to the sale of annuities. This measure has been amended significantly throughout the process. We want to thank all stakeholders for a very vibrant and robust conversation around this measure. And on behalf of Commissioner Lara, I ask for your aye vote here today. Thank you. And I have here with me Andrea Toth, who works in the department's field rating and underwriting bureau. She is on the ground to help answer any questions. She and I thank you.

Do we have any additional support in the room? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? If so, please come forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Robert Harrell. I'm the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California and we are part of five consumer groups that have an opposed unless amended position on this bill. Those five groups are us, LICAC, who you'll hear from in a moment, United Policyholders, the Center for Economic Justice, and the Consumer Federation of America. I have a great deal of respect for Senator Dodd. In fact, we were literally in this room 24 hours ago supporting a bill by the Senator and the Attorney General on consumer protection in the junk and hidden fee space.

So we've worked with him on a wide range of issues. This experience, to be candid, has been a bit different. Every time this bill has gotten amended after the March 7 version, which was a high watermark that protected consumers in a meaningful way, it's gotten worse. So that's three if I'm counting correctly, sets of amendments that have weakened the bill. The process has not been exemplary. And I'm not going to sit here and complain for five minutes about the process, but it has not been a true stakeholder process. Prior to my position here with CFC, I spent almost six years as a Deputy Insurance Commissioner at the Department of Insurance.

So I've been to more NAIC meetings than I care to recall, to be candid. Every room I've walked into at the NAIC, for every 100 people in that room, 95 of them are either insurance company employees or insurance industry lobbyists. And that domination of NAIC is what leads to weak NAIC models, which then are implemented by a number of other states first, and then they come to California and say this is a great standard. We think it's fantastic. I should note that before, as Mr. Martinez pointed out, before Commissioner Lara voted for it, he spoke out and his department spoke out against the very NAIC model that's reflected in this bill saying it was too weak and not protective enough of consumers.

There are two paths here. There's the NAIC path, which is what the insurance industry wants you to do. They had a heavy influence on the NAIC model that makes up the core of this bill. Or there's another path not mentioned anywhere in the analysis or anywhere else. That's the New York path. The New York path, Regulation 187, is much more consumer-protective. Industry is always going to choose the path of less consumer protection. But California has historically chosen the path of more consumer protection and you ought to do so here. The department has almost 5000 complaints on the life insurance industry over the past five years.

The department has almost 800 complaints in the annuities sector over the past five years. This bill will mislead consumers. It actually, in at least one place, makes current law weaker and it is weaker than NAIC in at least a couple of places. Nothing has to happen this year. The standard is a 1125. Let's pause this, get this right, have a true stakeholder process. We respectfully urge a no vote.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm Brian Brosnahan, Executive Director of the Life Insurance Consumer Advocacy Center, or LICAC. Although SB 263 started out as a strong consumer protection bill industry amendments have weakened the bill to the point where LICAC and our coalition of consumer groups are forced to oppose it. Given California's strong record up to now on consumer protection, this bill is frankly an embarrassment. It works a fraud on consumers in two important ways. First, it misleads consumers into thinking the agent is required to act in the consumer's best interest.

Although the March 7 version of the bill required that agents consider only the interests of the consumer in making a recommendation, the current version adopts the NAIC model regulation, which was drafted by industry to allow agents to weigh their own interests against the consumer's interest, leaving it up to the agent to decide on how to do this. Second, it allows agents to lie to consumers by telling consumers that the agent is disclosing material conflicts of interest. Although the bill requires disclosure of an agent's material conflicts of interest with the consumer, the bill defines material conflict of interest to exclude cash and non-cash compensation.

That would exempt 99% of material conflicts of interest from the scope of the bill. About the only thing left would be stock ownership in the insurance company. So that would need to be disclosed as a conflict but not the $20,000 commission that the agent could earn by advance by convincing the consumer to buy the product. I submit it's positively Orwellian to define the conflict a way so that consumers think that conflicts of interest are being disclosed when they are not.

As my colleague has pointed out, you have until 2025 to adopt, and that's not implement, but to adopt legislation that meets or exceeds the NAIC model reg. To conclude, the March 7 version of the bill reflects what CDI thought was best for California, but that has been turned around 180 degrees. It's just gone too far. I urge you to show that the California Legislature is not controlled by the insurance industry. I ask that you reject this bill, make it a two-year bill so that we can come back in 2024 and get this right in a true stakeholder process. Thank you very much.

Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the committee for questions. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there any additional opposition in the room? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions.

I want to thank the author and the commissioner's office. The commissioner, Commissioner Lara, is elected and accountable directly to the people. So I just find the accusations that he's working against consumer interests to be unwarranted and unfair. If anything, I speak a lot with the insurance industry, and they accuse him of being too harsh on the insurance industry. So I've never heard them say he's too easy on them or he's in bed with them. So I don't think the opposition is warranted or fair. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Senator Dodd, would you like to close?

Yes. With all due respect, I have worked with Mr. Harrell a lot. It has been a work in progress. We've had to make certain amendments in order to create the bill that we have, which is stronger than the current NAIC model. I think this is something if somebody else next year, the year after, before 2025, wants to pick up on this legislation. But sometimes, as I think the members in the room know very clearly, if you fall in love with your bill and want to keep it exactly the way it is, is when it starts. When you've got member complaints about that specific bill, sometimes that doesn't work very well either. So what we have before you today is the best I think we can do at this point in time, which does move forward and does protect consumers. And I'd like to thank the committee staff and the Chair for their help in this process. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I appreciate all the time that has been spent from all the stakeholders working on this bill. I know we've met with all the stakeholders. If this bill does go forward, I encourage you to continue your conversations. Thank you. Please call the role. Oh, motion. Do we have a motion? Okay, go ahead.

File item number four, SB 263, Dodd. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Calderon. Aye. Calderon, aye. Essayli. Aye. Essayli, aye. Berman. Cervantes. Aye. Cervantes, aye. Chen. Aye. Chen, aye. Vince Fong. Aye. Vince Fong, aye. Gipson. Grayson. Aye. Grayson, aye. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. Rodriguez. Soria. Aye. Soria, aye. Valencia Wood.

That's nine votes and we'll leave it open, the roll.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Appreciate it.

Okay. Looking for Senator Durazo or Senator Laird.

You. Okay, at this time, we're going to do add ons consent calendar. Berman, vince Fong.

Vince Fong. Aye Gibson, Rodriguez, Valencia Wood. File item number one, SB, 391. Berman. Vince Fong. Vince Fong. Aye, Gibson, Rodriguez, Soria, Valencia and Wood. File item number two, SB 3631. Berman, vince Fong. No, Vince Fong. No. Gibson Rodriguez, valencia Wood.

File item number t3, SB, 636. Berman, Vince Fong. No, Vince Fong.

No. Gibson rodriguez. Valencia Wood. Okay, we're just waiting for authors. Good morning, Senator Durazo. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, madam Chair. Good morning and Members. Right now, federal law excludes over 1 million Californians from unemployment insurance benefits when they temporarily lose work.

Yet employers taxes on the labor of undocumented workers contribute an estimated $302,000,000 each year to our unemployment insurance system, even though those same workers never see a cent of the benefits. This disparity hurts employers as well as their employees. That money is supposed to help sustain industries and help workers get back to work when the jobs become available.

Without unemployment benefits, our economy suffers. Missed paycheck, spiral into missed rent checks, missed car payments, and the inability to provide food for families. We are modeling this on successful programs in New York and Colorado.

These benefits are good for families. They help ensure food on the table and a roof over their heads. Here with me today to testify in support of the Bill are Andrea Amaviska with the California Immigrant Policy Center and Irene de Barai. Qua with Liberes campesinos. I'm sorry. Okay.

Testimonial no solo comotrava hadores and Cial. Ketrava muje frentado, mucco retos travahando dinoche, mientras complianto cona responsibilita familia de Pandes lone Cesario parasalira de lante cuando pasancosasuera de nostro control como insendio juvias inundaciones nosquentravaho is in guna red. De segurida paramuccos travahadores.

El NoPo de pander de beneficio de samplio significa. El no poder pagar bi Vienda ecomida evisto viviendas proveradas. Poor Empliadores kenostang and condiciones esto impact alasalud mental de LA comunida el tenerca cambia travajos constante.

Mente esmuidificil ESTA de esperacionos I estonosa puesto and pellegro de pandiento de emplayadores cabos and de Mi in his companions former parte de LA Organisacion de Liras campesinas epodido mantenerme informada de recursos Ialaverdo naciones de ROPA icomida parapodillos conacomonida Tambie podido campagna de safety net for all perlo sultimos dosanios frequente mentes esco. And.

I'll provide a translation. She says, hello. My name is Virginia. I'd like to share my testimony not only as an essential worker who has worked in the fields and in warehouses for the last few years, but also as a woman who has faced many challenges working day and night while fulfilling the responsibilities of being a mother of two small children. Our family depends on two salaries, and we do what is necessary to get ahead. When things are out of our control, such as fires, rains and floods, we are left without a job and without any safety net.

For many workers not being able to depend on unemployment benefits means not being able to pay for housing and food. I have seen employer provided housing that is not in livable conditions. All of this impacts the mental health of our community.

Constantly having to change jobs has been very difficult for me. This kind of desperation makes us vulnerable and has even put us in danger, depending on employers who are abusive towards me and my coworkers. I am part of the Lis Campacinas organization, and I have been able to keep informed of resources and at the same time receive donations of clothing and food to share with the community.

I've also been a part of the Safety Net For All campaign for the past two years. We often hear of concern that there are not enough farm workers in this state or country, but in reality there are, and we are just treated as dispensable. Providing these deserved unemployment benefits is not only a dignified step towards ensuring our human rights, it is also a way to preserve the workforce that sustains our economy.

Please do what you can to support SB 227. Thank you onto my testimony.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Andrea Maviska, and I'm the senior legislative advocate with the California Immigrant Policy Center, a proud Member of the Safety Net for all coalition.

California is home to 1.1 million undocumented workers who contribute 3.7 billion in state and local taxes annually. Additionally, through employer taxes on their labor, undocumented workers in California contribute over $300 million to the unemployment insurance system every year. Yet they never see a cent of unemployment benefits when they temporarily lose work simply due to their immigration status.

Unemployment benefits are one of the most effective economic stabilizers during times of crisis and downturn. And yet, during the pandemic and now with these storms, the exclusion from unemployment benefits has forced California's undocumented workers and their families into steep financial hardship. The disparity in our unemployment insurance system hurts employers as well as workers.

Unemployment benefits are designed to help sustain industries in the economy, helping Californians get back to work when jobs become available again. Given California's undocumented workers are ineligible for unemployment insurance due to federal restrictions, SB 227 would create a separate, state funded excluded workers program, which would provide undocumented workers with up to $300 per week for up to 20 weeks of unemployment. This amount is in line with what undocumented workers would receive if they were eligible for unemployment insurance and would go right back into local economies to sustain communities.

The program, as the Senator stated, has been modeled after proven successful programs in other states. Thank you. And I respectfully request your aye vote.

Nicole Wartelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support. Melissa Sigun on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network. In support. Craig Pulsfer on behalf of Equality California in support. Erica Zermania on behalf of the center for workers'rights and the Safety Net for all coalition. In support. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support,

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

Martha Guerrero, representing the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. In support Fatima Martinez Hara with the California Immigration Policy Center on behalf of Grace and Child Poverty, legal Aid at Work and National Employment Law Project in support.

Do we have any opposition to this Bill? Seeing none. Do we have any questions from the committee or comments?

Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank Senator Durazo for bringing this critical piece of legislation. As someone that represents a district that most recently was impacted by the atmospheric rivers and folks having to be evacuated for weeks at a time, with no jobs for more than six weeks, families were desperate.

And in my district, I met with many of the families that were even just asking our office for laundry detergent, cup of Noodles, because they didn't have the basic necessities as a result, even though that they work in our Central Valley, feeding not just all of us, but our entire nation. And I think that this is a great effort to create a safety net for workers. These are working people.

People are not asking for a handout. They're asking for support so that they can continue to stay in their own communities and not be displaced so that when they're able to go back to work, they can get back to work. I know that because as a daughter of immigrants, and I remember when my parents were undocumented, they experienced some of these same challenges.

And so I hate to see the kids in my district having to be impacted as a result of loss of work. And so the least that we could do is create a safety net that will help them continue and support their kids. Thank you, and I will be supporting today.

Go ahead. Again, I want to thank Senator Durazo and the witnesses. Muches gracias.

I introduced an immigration resolution on Monday to thank the contributions that immigrants have contributed to this country. As an immigrant myself, it was my parents American dream that I'd be here one day. And it was because of their hard work and dedication that many other immigrants are able to do the same thing.

However, while we pass resolutions and call you heroes and call you essential, we did not provide the essential basic needs that are needed when you need the most. So I am excited and happy to see this Bill because it's time that we give you back. We don't just call you essential. We actually deliver essential goods for you.

Thank you. Yeah. I have some questions about the Bill, and first, I want to thank the witnesses for being here. These issues are not your fault. I mean, this is the product of a broken system, a system in which we allow millions of undocumented immigrants to come through an open border and then you're placed in an impossible situation. So this is no fault of your own, but there are some logistical concerns with this.

Unemployment is supposed to be for people who lose their jobs without fault. But the way the Bill is written, it says that you are not even allowed to contact the employer to verify anything, what the cause of their termination was or whether they were laid off or whether they were fired. You don't get unemployment if you're terminated for cause.

And so I just want to read a quick statement from the Governor when this was previously vetoed. And I understand that people are paying into the system, but we do have other mechanisms in place for them to get benefits and get the tax money they've paid in. The Governor said, California has taken critical actions to support inclusion and opportunity for undocumented immigrants and mixed status families.

California made historic investments to ensure more undocumented Californians have access to health care, food assistance, and to provide for inflation relief. The Bill needs further work to address operational issues, fiscal concerns, and dedicated funding sources. This Bill would cost $600 million.

We have a deficit in the Ed Fund of 19 billion, which small businesses are going to be paying for the next few years. So what is your response to the governor's concerns about the operational issues and the cost of the Bill?

Yeah, for one, we are working with the governor's office to address the issues of operationalizing. We intend to address every one of those issues. The main thing for this Bill is that we want it to be clear that those workers should benefit from a safety net the way that everybody else does.

We have to set it up differently because we can't do it through the current system because of the federal dollars connection. But we should establish that in California, those people, those men and women will be eligible for some form of a safety net. Again, the details we will continue to work with the governor's office on that.

But how do we prevent fraud if you can't verify information and you can't contact the employer? We gave out 30 billion in fraud during the Pandemic for lack of documentation and checks. How do we make sure that this program doesn't invite more fraud?

Yeah well, we're not supporting fraud, of course. And there will be a way. We have done this with other programs, and we've done it with other programs this last year, especially during the Pandemic.

We had some special funding that went to people who could not prove their immigration status, and we'll find a way of doing it. We're not supportive of fraud here. The purpose of that was to keep some privacy from the federal government.

Okay, thank you. Thank you.

I'm sorry, should I ask you yeah, I just wanted to share as well that the Bill does include this point system that we established to try to prevent the fraud to establish proof of employment. And so that would include pay stubs, bank receipts, or checking receipts to prove employment.

So we do have mechanisms in place where the individual would have to earn a certain number of points by submitting proof of employment to qualify for the program.

Thank you, Assemblywoman Cervantes. Yes, thank you.

I want to first thank the author and also thank the witness testimony today and all the sponsors of the Bill. As we've seen time and time again, our undocumented community is truly a backbone to California's economy. And we want to make sure that we are providing the assistance to those that have been excluded.

And we want to make sure that we are uplifting our most vulnerable communities in the state of California. And so I'm happy to see this policy today or where we could actually mean what we say through actionable items. And this is a piece of policy that I'm happy to support today and move forward.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close just by I'm sorry, this is a Latino Caucus priority Bill. I'm very proud of that.

And again, to repeat that we are working with the Governor's office to address other issues. And I urge aye vote thank you, Senator. This is a policy committee, not a fiscal committee, and this enjoys a due pass recommendation.

Please call the Role file, item number 2227. Motion is due past two appropriations. Calderon. Aye. Calderon? Aye. Saley, Sally. No. Berman. Aye. Berman? Aye Cervantes. Cervantes. Aye Chen. Chen? No. Vince Fong? Vince Fong? No. Gibson. Gibson. Aye Grayson. Grayson. Aye Joan Sawyer. Joan Sawyer. Aye Ortega. Ortega Aye Rodriguez.

Senator Laird, whenever you're ready, please come up to present on SB 623. See you in Wafer. Move the Bill. Madam Chair, I'm really sorry.

Soria. Soria. Aye Valencia. Valencia. Aye Wood. Wood? Aye. Hayville gets out. Thank you. Thank you very much, Members.

The Senate doesn't have the you go ahead. The Senate doesn't have the same rules about moving bills. And I apologize for the length of our hearings. As a result, let me just say a few things. Given the fact that a motion has been made this is Senate Bill 623. It's regarding the rebuttable presumption with regard to public safety employees. A Bill was signed in 2019 that did this. This Bill extends it. We have commitments to get information to document this in the next few weeks.

And with the Committee, I want to thank them for working with us. And I committed to request that the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation undertake a study to provide data on the presumption before the proposed provision sunset in 2032. This was passed this Committee last year with another author with no no votes.

It was vetoed by the Governor because of information. And that's why I'm grateful for the request that I've agreed to. And that's why we are compiling information from the individuals affected by this.

And so I have with me two witnesses brian Rice, the President of the California Professional Firefighters, and Serena Lewis from the Public Safety, who is a public safety dispatcher from Los Angeles County Local 1014. And at the appropriate time, I would request an iPhone. Thank you, Senator.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Brian Rice and I'm the President of the California Professional Firefighters, and I have the honor of representing nearly 35,000 professional firefighters and emergency services personnel statewide. I also served nearly 30 years as a firefighter with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire Department.

Over the last several years, the fire service has taken a hard look at the prevalence of post traumatic stress and other behavioral health issues in our ranks. And the job of firefighter is difficult and dangerous. But for far too long in our culture, in the firehouse, we've just been told to suck it up and do the job.

But thanks to the courage and the leadership of my brothers and sisters throughout California, that message is changing. For example, in 2016, the California Firefighter Behavioral Health Task Force was created. This task force is a joint labor management initiative committed to making emotional wellness and posttraumatic stress injuries a health and safety priority in the fire service.

The task force is focused on reducing the stigma surrounding behavioral health issues and establishing training and peer support teams within fire departments across the state, and so much more. However, we can't do this work alone. We need the support of our departments and the state to ensure that when things go bad, my Members and firefighters throughout California can access the help that they desperately need in order to get better and get back to work.

The workers compensation presumptive of post traumatic stress enacted by SB 542 in 2019 has literally been a lifesaver. And when a firefighter is in crisis, the last thing they need to worry about is whether or not they have access to care or they're going to be rejected on their claim. They need to get into treatment as soon as possible and as soon as they can to get to the other side of that injury.

It's critically important that this presumption be extended in order to ensure that any and all firefighters who are affected by this job caused post traumatic stress are able to get the care that they need. With me today, and I'm proud to sit here with one of my colleagues, Serena Lewis. She is a dispatcher for the Los Angeles County Fire Department and a Member of the Los Angeles County Firefighters local 1014.

She will speak on the difficulty and the taxing work performed by her colleagues and the critical importance of providing those needed protections to these Members of our public safety workforce and system. My Members stand up to answer the call every day in order to keep our community safe. And I ask for your yes vote on SB 623.

And I just am humbled to introduce Serena Lewis to speak today to you. Thank you, Serena.

Thank you, President Rice. Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Serena Lewis, and I have been a public safety dispatcher for the Los Angeles County Fire Department for seven years and a Member of LA County Firefighters Locals 1014.

I am proud to serve the residents of my community in this critically important role. When someone calls 911, they are frightened and looking for help, often in life threatening circumstances. And it is my job to walk them through the worst days of their lives, not they don't call 911 for the best day of their life, keeping them calm while also getting the information that we need in order to send the appropriate help.

And even when help is on the way, I stay on the line and provide comfort we stay on the line and provide comfort and assistance in whatever way we can. As President Rice just testified, the post traumatic stress presumption has been incredibly important in helping firefighters access treatment for the injuries they've received on the job. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for dispatchers who work hand in hand with those firefighters.

My colleagues and I are exposed to trauma, daily hearing, tragedy, death, and violence as part of our regular work. As a fully trained peer supporter, not only serving the public, but my peers, I have seen firsthand what the regular exposure to this kind of stress can do to dispatchers and firefighters and the impact it can have on their mental health. We do what we can to help each other as we help our communities, but we cannot do this alone, and we are now asking for your help.

In my seven years, I've had thousands of examples or stories that I can share with you. There's definitely a couple that stick out, and it's been years since then. I have had personal experience with how traumatic something can be over the other end of the line, and you're literally the only person that can help.

I've had a wife call and I've had a wife call who found her husband hanging in the garage. And I was the only person on the phone, and I had to help her. He was still warm, so we had a chance to save him.

So I had to help her or walk her through cutting her husband down, hanging, and then try to start CPR. I've been on the phone with two friends that just went out to the desert to just go have fun and shoot guns, and all of a sudden, one of the friends just shot himself in the head. And I had to stay on the phone for 40 minutes while we send our guys in to go help.

But I need to make sure that their stage, because we don't exactly know. I'm just on the phone. So I don't exactly know their circumstances. So we want to keep them safe as well. I had to walk this friend, whose friend was lying on the floor, walk him through CPR because he was still breathing. And just try to help as much as I can for 40 minutes.

And this is something that's just like 40 minutes out of a 1224 36 hours workday that my colleagues and I experience. So I am asking you, I'm letting you know. Dispatchers are integral part of the public safety system in this state and we work tirelessly to keep Californians safe.

Our jobs are difficult, exhausting, and stressful beyond belief. And we need your support to make sure that we can access the care that we need to keep doing them. I just ask you if you call 911, and I hope that you don't have to ever, but if you call 911, do you not want the other person at the end of the line to be at the top of their game and to be of sound mind and to just be clear headed? So this is what we're asking you to, and to urge you to vote yes on SB 623. Thank you for your time.

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

Madam Chair, Members Randy Perry on behalf of Porak and San Francisco POA in full support, co sponsoring.

Good morning. Jennifer Rowe on behalf of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association. We're also a proud co sponsor. In support.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation. Also in support,

good morning, Chair. And Members Naomi Pedron with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, as well as the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Benefit Trust Fund in support.

Good morning, Sarah Necito, on behalf of Cal Nina. The California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association. We are also proud co sponsors and strong support.

Do we have any opposition to this Bill? Please come forward.

Chair and Members Faith Porges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers authorities. We agree with the author's recognition of the honor and distinction in which peace officers and public servants serve our communities.

And we recognize the mental health challenges that may be encountered, but are here today respectfully opposed to SB 623. The benefits proposed by SB 623 are taxpayer funded and deserve thoughtful review. Most public agencies self Fund their workers compensation coverage in a notforprofit JPA.

Local governments have been using this model since the early 1980s, when many insurance companies were unwilling or very reluctant to provide insurance products to public agencies. I do also want to briefly note that presumption should not be confused with treatment. Employers do provide $10,000 of employer funded medical treatment for all claims brought forward, regardless of whether they're accepted or denied, and provide generous health benefits with the recognition that they should be there for officers should they ever need them.

All presumptions, even rebuttable, are nearly impossible as a bar for employers to prove a negative that an illness is not work related. So the reality of the Bill is that claims that are not occupational will be accepted and paid for with taxpayer money. SB.

623 proposes to extend the sunset for existing presumption for PTSI created by SB 542 and expands the presumption to thousands of individuals and classifications, including peace officers that are investigators for the Dental Board of California, work for the Department of Consumer Affairs, the Department of Motor Vehicles, the division of Labor Standards enforcement. Any peace officer employed by a k twelve public school and many more. We are unaware of any objective analysis that these classifications merit the elimination of statutory claims review procedures that accompany Workers'Compensation presumptions or that they're disproportionately impacted by PTSI.

For example, an internal review of the last five years of safety dispatcher claims data tells us that PTSI claims are infrequent and the two that we had were accepted. Instances of denials of site claims were appropriate and often directly followed a disciplinary action for an officer or employee, and were filed right before retirement, which increases tax free pension benefits. 10 seconds.

Confronting stigma for individuals with PTSI is an important objective we share with all Members of this committee and stakeholders, but at this time, we're opposed to SB 623. I've also been asked to register opposition for the California State Association of Counties, the California Special Districts Association, and California Cities.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the committee, jason Schmeltzer here today with, on behalf of CCWC and Prism, in respectful opposition to SB 623. We appreciate the important work done by the folks who are the subject of this Bill, and we're not confused at all about the personal toll that this work takes. And I'd like to commend the witness.

I think if anybody was confused about that prior to her testimony, they probably are no longer confused. I think we also appreciate the intent of Senator Laird and the sponsors of the Bill. I think they're bringing this forward for the right reasons.

We do firmly believe that these types of injuries should be covered by the Workers'Compensation system, and they generally are. Where we depart from the author and the sponsors is on how the Legislature should go about evaluating and responding to proposed solutions. We believe there should be a high standard for the passage of presumption legislation because those bills don't just make it easier for workers to pursue righteous claims.

Presumptions make it virtually impossible for public agencies to refute the very small number of truly invalid claims, which are very expensive, and draw on public dollars. The analysis describes presumptions as functionally conclusive, and we agree with that assessment because of that. It's our position that the Legislature should expect authors and proponents to bring data to demonstrate that the population of workers subject to the presumption proposal are actually having their claims inappropriately denied under the workers compensation system.

And acknowledging, obviously, that the Senator is indicating and has agreed to pursue information in the future. I would just draw your attention to SB 542, which passed through this committee several years ago, which this Bill expands. That Bill was studied and the Legislature imposed.

This committee actually inserted a sunset into that Bill waiting for that other information. That Bill has been studied. At this point, the information sort of underpinning the need for that study has not been brought forward.

The study does not or excuse me, underpinning the need for that Bill has not been elucidated by that study. Yet we are here seeking to expand and extend that presumption. So from our perspective, we think the Legislature should review that information prior to passing these bills.

Just yesterday, the Legislature passed a budget that continued, contained tough cuts for all sorts of important programs. Local jurisdictions are also feeling the Princh. And considering the lack of objective information indicating the need for this proposal, we don't think the Legislature should pass this until such information is available. With that, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll bring it back to the committee. Do we have any oh, I'm sorry. Additional opposition

Nicole Wardleman on behalf of the city of Ontario, in respectful opposition.

John Kennedy, rural county, representatives of California, also in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the committee. Senator Grayson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank Senator Laird for your great work on this crucial, crucial Bill that has come forward. President Rice, thank you for your great work.

And I am especially moved by having Dispatcher Lewis with us today, in which dispatchers, in many cases, do get left out of the conversation, and they are literally the very first ones in the conversation and stay all the way to the end. So, having said that, the reason I am passionate done a lot of work in this area dating back to AB 1116, or AB 1117, establishing peer support opportunities for both police and fire. The reason for that driving force was what I witnessed and still witness to this day as a critical response chaplain for a police Department and the toll that it takes in fighting for the right to be able to have that workers comp claim approved.

And the time that it takes for that, maybe it's time for the cities that to experience that a little bit or local jurisdictions on what it takes in time. Because right now, while we're waiting on data, lives are still at peril. The reason why I say that is because it wasn't just but a few years ago that stats came out that showed that more firefighters committed suicide than actually died in the line of duty.

And with that, I am full support of this Bill and would love to be able to be added on as a co author or principal co, whatever you prefer. Thank you. Go

ahead. I want to. Thank you for being here. I just have to say, I don't know how you guys do it. Dispatchers one of the hardest jobs I've ever seen. You have to not only type fast and get all the information, but you got to stay calm on the phone and give good information. Over.

Not only that, you didn't even touch about this. Dispatchers are responsible for protecting the police officers and firefighters out on the field. You have to know where they're at, what's going on.

You need to know if they need help. And with the rise of violence against men and women in uniform in law enforcement, and I have to say a lot of it comes from leaders who are attacking the work that men and women in law enforcement are doing and dehumanizing them. Attacks are going up.

I can't imagine the mental health toll that's taken on the whole industry and the whole profession. So I think it's important that we send a message because right now it's very hard to get people to take these jobs. Nobody wants to be a police officer right now.

Nobody wants to be a dispatcher. So we have to send a message that the state of California wants you. We want good men and women to come work in these professions.

We need you. This is we're talking about public safety. We're talking about protecting our community, helping people in the worst possible situations that occur.

And we can't do it without good men and women. And you guys have to know that when you take these jobs that we have your back and we will support you. The difficulty with these injuries is they're not visible.

Psychological injuries are the most difficult things to diagnose and assess. So we're going to give you the benefit of the doubt. And so I do support this. I'd like to be a co author if you'll accept me. And we appreciate your work. Do

we have any other comments from go ahead. Senator

Laird I'm glad you brought this forward. President Rice, I don't know if you remember we had a conversation about a firefighter that came to me who was experiencing PTSD. And because of where he came from, he was forced to pay for his medical psychological needs, which I thought was just beyond unreasonable.

In fact, when he described what triggered it going into a burning building and pulling out bodies that had been burnt and some of the horrific things that he saw that he still experienced and lived through, like 20 years later. And we talked about what could we do? So, Senator Laird, I'm glad we couldn't think of anything then. So I'm glad you were able to do that and bring it forward.

And then dispatcher. Lewis. My cousin was a dispatcher for Los Angeles Police Department for 35 years. I probably am saying the wrong thing when I say she was she's retired, but she still is. She still has the trauma of 30 years of all those calls. I even see her now when people have the old style phone ringers and it goes off on their cell phone.

I can see her hands trembling and she's well into her sixty s and she still probably needs some treatment, but she won't get it because of that kind of especially when you're African American or minority, you don't seek that. It's even worse for people who are in public safety. I even tried to get it for the correctional officers, which I haven't always had the best relationship with.

But even then it was killed and we couldn't get them the kind of mental health that they need because there are more correctional officers who commit suicide than are killed in the line of duty and at prisons. And so it is a real thing that we're not really addressing. So I want to thank the three of you for bringing this forward because we not only need to shine a light on it, but we got to actually become a little more proactive in making sure that we take care of you.

I can see it. We've got to take care of you. We got to do it now. So thank you for being here. Thank you for sharing. And I know it was difficult, but it's really important that you let us know that we can feel what you feel.

Thank you. Some of them would. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Laird, for bringing this forward. I've been a consultant for law enforcement for 27 years. I don't see what these people see every day. I know how what I've done has affected me personally. The mass disasters I've gone to, the things I see in my job to help families get closure when they lose someone.

But what I do see is the toll it takes on the people that do this every day. Whether it's the firefighters, the people who work in law enforcement for the coroner, the first responders out on the scene, police officers. The cumulation of this. I don't know how you define it, but I don't know where it fits into all of this. But it is definitely a cumulative effect and it's really difficult on them. It's really difficult on their families.

So I love to be added as a co author, if you'll have me. I thank you for your public service and I think we need to recognize how difficult this really is and give the support that is due. Thank

you. Thank you. Anybody else? Any comments or questions? Senator, would you like to close? Yes,

and let me just say, I think there were much more articulate closes that I could do that were just made. I just take them in and we will continue to work on the information. And additionally, as Resources Secretary, I had Cal fire for eight years.

I saw and talked to people that had to knock on windows in Santa Rosa as the fire was burning over and get them out of their house. The story was very moving to me of when they saw a car in the driveway in coffee park. If they didn't answer the front door in the middle of the night, they walked around into what they guessed was the bedroom window and pounded until people got out.

And I talked to people who had to get out their kits because the fire burned over them. I went to funerals. And I can only imagine the accumulation over time of what this is.

And so I appreciate the articulation of it by the Members and would respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Please call the roll.

File item number seven, SB six two three. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Calderon aye. Essayli, Aye. Berman, Aye. Cervantes, Aye. Chen, Aye. Fong, Aye. Gibson, Aye. Grayson, Aye. Swayer, Aye. Ortega, Aye. Rodriguez. Soria, Aye. Valencia, Aye. Wood, Aye.

Okay. That measure passes. Thank you. You're welcome. Now we'll do add ons go ahead and consent calendar..

Berman, Aye. Gibson, Aye. Valencia, Aye. Wood, Aye. File item number two, SB six three one. Berman, Aye. Gibson, Aye. Valencia, Aye. Wood, Aye. File item number three, SB six three six. Berman, Aye. Gibson, Aye. Valencia, Aye. Wood, Aye. File Item 263 Berman, Aye. Gibson, Aye. Valencia Aye. Wood. Aye

The meetings adjourned. The committee is adjourned. Madam