Assembly Standing Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care

All right, good afternoon. Thank you for joining us today for the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long Term Care. There is an immense amount of work happening in and around the Capitol today. We are hoping to do our due diligence today to hear our aging related bills and move everyone on to other hearings happening to ensure Members of the media and public have access to our proceedings today.

This hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and the Members of the public can provide testimony in person here in room 444. All right, so we do not have a quorum. We will proceed as a Subcommitee. In the absence of a quorum, I'm the only one here. There we go. So we will move on to our items, and we'll start with item number three. AB 2207. Assemblymember Reyes, state boards and commissions, representatives of older adults.

Thank you, Madam Chair and incoming Members. Today I'm pleased to present AB 2207. This Bill will increase the representation of older adults on six state boards, commissions and advisors.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members who will be joining us. I would like to introduce to you AB 2207. This bill will increase the representation of older adults on six boards, commissions, and advisory committees. The older adult population is rapidly growing and becoming increasingly diverse. By 2030, one quarter of the state's population will be older adults. They will be more racially and ethnically diverse and will be living longer.

We need to ensure that voices of older adults are uplifted, and we need to work on that with a sense of urgency. They should be part of the decision-making bodies that discuss and make decisions about them. This bill aligns with the goals of the Master Plan for Aging by increasing the inclusion and equity among older adults. We must all work toward a world in which older adults feel engaged, empowered, and valued.

Here to testify in support of AB 2207 are Karol Swartzlander, the Executive Director at the California Commission on Aging, and Rita Saenz, a former commissioner at the California Commission on Aging.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Karol Swartzlander. I'm the Executive Director of the California Commission on Aging and sponsor of AB 2207. This measure would expand membership on various boards, committees, and commissions to include representation of the California Commission on Aging, the California Department of Aging or both, or other representatives from organizations that serve or advocate on behalf of older adults.

The Commission on Aging is established in state statute as an independent advisory body and principal advocate before the Governor, Legislature, state, and federal departments. As you mentioned, the older adult population is rapidly growing and becoming diverse, so ensuring the perspectives of older Californians are considered by state agencies and departments requires representation and participation by older adults or those who advocate on behalf of them. The Commission strongly supports this legislation, and we urge your aye vote on AB 2207. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee soon to be here. My name is Rita Saenz. I'm speaking in strong support of AB 2207. As a former member of the Commission on Aging and as the director of three departments for the state, I recognize and appreciate the value of the kind of input that we're talking about: the implementation of state policies, the task forces, councils, commission, and workgroups. They all represent the voice of the people who are being served, and that is the most critical.

Each of us who runs a department knows that the input is invaluable. So the members, the appointees of these committees are always available for advising and reviewing policy. This is really key to ensuring an inclusive point of services. And designated positions on commissions and workgroups are not unusual. We've been doing it for decades. I am a former appointment secretary during the term of the first term of Jerry Brown, and they've always been part of the process.

And now we're looking at a growing, a larger group of individuals, and those voices need to be heard. Currently, legislation does not preclude older members from being a part, but it also does not include them. There are a couple of commissions that the Governor appoints to that have senior representatives, so it wouldn't be something new. It's going to promote inclusion and equity, and these are people who are affected by the policies.

Just to give you one example, one of the areas, having run EDD for a year, one of the areas, workforce development, seniors are getting--they're staying in the workforce later, some of them need retraining, and there's not a lot of attention on that right now. So, as was said, the population of California's older adults will be, I think, greater than the population of people under the age of 18 by 2030. So, you know, we've got unique experiences.

You know, knowing your inclination with legislation, it's like lecturing to the, you know, singing to the choir. So I urge that there be strong support for this bill, and thank you for your time.

All right, so at this moment, we'll take anyone here that wants to add on in support.

Hi. Peter Hansel, Advocacy Volunteer for AARP, California, AARP in support.

Jason Gabhart with the Alzheimer's Association, in support.

Kathy Mossburg with Leading Age California, in support.

Michael Costa with the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging. We support.

Heather Harrison with the California Assisted Living Association, in support.

Thank you so much. Anybody in opposition? Seeing none, anything from the Committee? Seeing no other discussion from the Committee, I did want to thank you so much, Assembly Member Reyes, for this bill. I agree, and thank you for your service as the Appointment Secretary.

My start in this world happened when the Mona Pasquil, who was the Appointment Secretary, I guess, after you, had called me and said, you're being appointed to the Song-Brown Commission because we need a voice from rural communities, because we don't have anyone on there, and that literally is what started my career in this world. Absolutely. It's very important. Representation matters. Representatives from different age groups, different ethnicities, different cultures--every representation matters. So thank you so much for your guys' work on this.

I guess we are now operating as Subcommittee, so we'll move on to the next meeting or the next agenda item. Yes. Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes. And next, we have Assembly Member Alvarez: AB 2075: Resident Access Protection Act.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's always good to be in this Committee, doing work in this Committee, and I'm really pleased that I have Assembly Bill 2075 before this Committee and looking forward to the conversation around the Resident Access Protection Act. First of all, definitely want to thank the Committee staff, as always, for the work on the bill. It was very critical in order for us to get to where we're at now.

AB 2075 would provide residents of long-term care facilities with the right to in-person, on-site access to visitors during a public health emergency, as long as they follow the same safety protocols as the staff at those sites. I think we've all learned a lot of valuable lessons since the pandemic, not least of which was that halting visitation rights for our loved ones in long-term care facilities has a major impact on their mental and physical well-being.

For example, the Journal of American Medical Directors Association assessed the impact of the pandemic on the well-being of nursing home residents in 2020 and found that long-stay residents had a 15 percent increase in depressive symptoms and a 150 percent increase in unplanned, substantial weight loss. Recognizing this, one of our former colleagues who was Chair of this Committee introduced Assembly Bill 2546. This history is important, as that bill would have similarly established visitation rights in long-term care facilities during a public health emergency.

However, throughout the process, the bill was amended, and what ended up happening is it created a working group to develop recommendations regarding the best visitation practices and policies for long-term care facilities during the public health emergency. So that bill was signed into law and the working group was created and it met five times over the course of six months and included participants from advocacy groups, from state agencies, facilities, public health officials, and from medical groups as well.

It published its report in October of last year. The workgroup was clear in its takeaway. It is, quote, 'it is essential for family and friends to have access to residents, including during a state of emergency.' AB 2075 is a rare opportunity to pass legislation that has undergone the exact process that we often hope occurs when we are trying to pass legislation. This is a thorough process with vetting and input from different stakeholders.

Legislature recognized a problem and established a working group and the stakeholders representing those perspectives to understand it and ultimately generate recommendations on how to solve it. That is what this bill is based off of: those exact recommendations. We also have included provisions to ensure flexibility for state and local authorities when handling public health emergencies by authorizing them to define how visitors can demonstrate proficiency in following safety protocols and can cap the amount of visitors who can visit simultaneously.

We also added language to ensure staff have priority as it relates to personal protective equipment. AB 2075 is essential to ensure that our loved ones who are in long-term care facilities don't ever have to go through what they went through during the pandemic again.

Appreciate your time, and looking forward to the discussion. With that, I'll turn it over to two witnesses who are here to share with you: a staff attorney from the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform and Maitely Weissman from the--co-founder of the Essential Caregivers Coalition.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Thanks to the Committee for the chance to speak on behalf of this really important bill and thanks to the Committee staff for their wonderful analysis and their advocacy for long-term care facility residents beyond just this bill. We learned, as Assembly Member Alvarez said, we did learn a lot from Covid. There were no more difficult lessons learned than what we learned in long-term care facilities. Covid was an unprecedented threat to the health and safety of long-term care residents. Facility residents.

The initial response was to lock the facilities down and to lock the residents up, and still residents died from Covid nationally by the tens of thousands. Tens of thousands more residents died not from Covid but from the neglect and isolation they suffered during the lockdowns. Visitors and other support persons are critical to resident well-being. When they were locked out, residents were deprived of this essential care that they needed most from the people that loved them best.

Two years ago, the Legislature recognized the complexity of the lockdown issues and funded a statewide workgroup composed of three dozen organizations and several individual stakeholders. The recommendations issued by the workgroup are the roadmap that AB 2075 follows. Public health officials are opposed to any restrictions on their ability to manage public health emergencies and keep long-term care facility residents safe. That's fine. We want them to keep them safe, too.

But AB 2075 does not limit public health officials from imposing any safety measures in long-term care facilities. They can require masking or PPE. They can require symptom screening or vaccination. They can even impose quarantines or lockdowns. What AB 2075 does is require that these safety measures be applied equally to visitors as well as facility staff. The big mistake that public health officers made was in assuming facility visitors are inherently less valuable or less safe to the well-being of residents than facility staff. That's the one assumption AB 2075 will not allow to be made again. I urge your support.

Good afternoon. My name is Maitely Weissman. I'm a family caregiver and Co-Founder of the Essential Caregivers Coalition. I've provided care for my mom, Celia, for as long as I can remember, and that didn't change when she moved into a memory care RCFE. Our story is a model for what could be. My mom acquired a traumatic brain injury, incomplete quadriplegia and aphasia just after high school.

I augment staff care on a daily basis, helping her to eat, drink, bathe, dress, toilet, organize, transfer, move about, and communicate, among other ongoing activities. Pandemic visitor restrictions abruptly stopped that support, failing to recognize family caregiving as urgent and essential work. My mom, Celia, is a jokester, the life of the party, someone who lights up a room and gets everyone laughing, but without adequate in-person care, her demeanor and quality of life rapidly deteriorated. I could only do so much through video visits and supply drops.

She lost weight, became agitated, withdrawn, depressed, and on some days, unresponsive. Her remaining language skills dwindled further. Staff didn't note these changes or the bruises, rashes, bad hygiene, lethargy, dehydration, or delirium she experienced. Hospital visits increased for abnormal blood pressure, dehydration, contusions, a broken clavicle, aspiration pneumonia, and recurrent C. diff, all in the first several months of isolation measures. I watched my mom struggle to survive because family caregivers were miscategorized as mere visitors. But then something went right.

First, hospitals always let me stay by her side 24/7 in proper PPE. That's because of ADA accommodations. Then against all the rules, her facility did as well. During the biggest Covid outbreak in that facility, she was still recovering from C. diff, so I moved in 24/7, sleeping in an N95, donning a gown, gloves, and booties for both contact and airborne precautions, and through that outbreak, we remained safe and Covid-free. And we also got out of C. diff, fortunately.

I was the only family member inside for daily care in a fairly large facility. I was reminded of that dubious privilege whenever I alerted management to problems like staff not wearing masks or not responding to residents crying for help. What I witnessed as I walked through the halls to my mom's room each day was devastating: residents wandering around in various stages of undress, seemingly panicked, reaching out, crying, 'help me. Can you please help me?' No staff was in sight.

Cords were regularly pulled for hours with no answer. With each passing day, I couldn't help but wonder why their family caregivers were not given the same access, considering I would often see them at the front door responsibly wearing the same PPE or better than staff. Why us? Why me? Why my mom? I'm no more special than any other family caregiver. Maybe I was the loudest? I'll never know, and I will always wonder why. Please support AB 2075. Help us become collaborators in good public health outcomes. Make resident-designated support persons, the visitors who come to support residents, another tool in the public health arsenal. Thank you for your time.

I just want to thank you for your support of your mom. Being a patient advocate is one of the most powerful things that you can do, so thank you for taking care of her. I will go ahead and open this up for anybody else that wants to add on in support.

Hi. My name's Dr. Teresa Palmer. I'm an MD geriatrician. I worked for 35 years in San Francisco and Oakland, and a lot of that time in nursing homes. I'm also a daughter and a caregiver, the daughter of a mother who died after a year of isolation, wondering why she had been abandoned. And I belong to the California Essential Caregivers and the San Francisco Gray Panthers. I urge your support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Rosemary McDonnell-Horita. I'm a longtime disability activist in California and nationwide. I have personally built relationships with residents in nursing homes, and I'm speaking on behalf of them who are not able to be here today in support of AB 2075.

Jason Gabhart with the Alzheimer's Association, in support.

Peter Hansel, Advocacy Volunteer for AARP California, in strong support for the reasons stated.

Kathy Mossburg, in support. Leading Age California.

Heather Harrison with the California Assisted Living Association, in support.

Karol Swartzlander, California Commission on Aging, in support, and very proud that one of our commissioners and commission staff participated in the workgroup that led to this bill.

Good afternoon. Blanca Castro, State Long-Term Care Ombudsman. We are co-sponsors of this bill, and we are in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair. I'm Doctor Ken Cutler, Legislative Coordinator with the Health Officers Association of California. We appreciate the intent of AB 2075 to support residents of long term care facilities. I want to thank the author's office and the sponsors for meeting with us about our concern that the bill places significant limitations on state and local orders during a declared emergency that could hamper future efforts to protect health and safety. Regretfully, we continue to oppose the bill as currently written.

When faced with challenging and complex emergency, health officers try to balance the measures used with the magnitude and nature of the threat. The pandemic was unprecedented. Outbreaks in long term care facilities had devastating consequences, and local health officials worked tirelessly to protect communities from the spread of disease, sometimes facing threats in response. Any actions taken to limit visitation were never taken lightly, never intended to be punitive, and were issued out of care and concern. We do recognize that social connections are vital.

We strongly support visitation unless it endangers health and safety, and that should happen only rarely. Prior to the pandemic, public health officers had not imposed long term restrictions on visitation and hope never to do so again. Unfortunately, communicable diseases evolve quickly and spread rapidly. While the next emergency be avian flu, an ebola like virus, or a bioweapon. We don't know how severe it will be, who will be most vulnerable, or what protective measures we will need.

AB 2075 dictates that even in a declared emergency, state and local orders cannot suspend, supersede, or modify the measure except in a few narrow ways and without regard to the type or nature of that emergency. Because we are concerned the bill could have unintentional consequences that could people, put people at risk in future crises. We respectfully ask that you oppose AB 2075 unless amended. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Betsy Armstrong with the County Health Executives Association, regretfully, also in an oppose unless amended, position. We appreciate the author's engagement with us and hope to continue to work with him to address our concerns. Thank you.

Anybody else in opposition? All right, I'll bring it back to the Committee for comments. Assemblymember Cervantes.

Thank you. Thank you for the testimony provided today and your direct experience. I do want to ask the author, how do you address the concerns raised by the opposition?

Yeah. Thank you for the question. We've gone, I think, back and forth a few instances on trying to identify language to address that. I think we rely on the fact that public health officials would continue to be allowed to create guidelines and impose needed measures that would apply to staff and to visitors as the way to address concerns.

If concerns are raise as to how individuals in these kinds of facilities need to be protected, that staff would follow the rules and that any visitors would follow the same types of rules. Whether that was, again, as was stated, we don't know what the next health care emergency might be. And so what guidance, the guidance and the requirements would come from the public health officials. So that's how we think we address it. But we're, we know that the opposition continues. We have made some suggestions.

I'll just tell you right now, we haven't figured out what the right answer is. We're hopeful that maybe there's some ideas that came forward today that I know have come to our office that I actually haven't even seen just yet. So that's the best response I can give you to that question.

Assemblymember Friedman.

I also want to thank the witness for the testimony and all of the witnesses who came. I'm going to support the bill today. But I agree that there's probably some public health crises that we may or may not be able to anticipate where you cannot have enough protective measures available to really allow people to safely to visit without running the risk of spreading some contamination beyond the hospital. And I think there needs to be some wiggle room for public health officials.

You know, think about something like Ebola. You know, is a county hospital, is a rural hospital really going to have the kind of measures if we were to face something that contagious or something unknown? You know, in COVID, certainly a lot of mistakes made, but at the time, people were dealing with the information they had and didn't always know.

I mean, I remember, you know, when we were in session flying up on empty airplanes and I, you know, not touching anything because we didn't know if we were able to transmit just by touching something on an airplane. So, you know, I think being able to balance having family, being able to visit because like you said, people are feeling abandoned, they're getting sicker, they're not being taken care of. You know, there are awful stories that nobody wants to face.

But if we had an ebola outbreak here, what if some people were insisting on going in and we knew that we couldn't protect other people outside of the hospital? I think that there has to be some sort of balance. Thank you.

I appreciate that feedback. We've tossed around a lot of different ideas like requiring that and these are all internal conversations but making you privy to. But I think it's important that we've talked about. Do we give a timeframe of when we should perhaps get more regulation from the public health officials? Do we, you know, if there's an order, at what point, a month, two months, is it like, maybe time to allow for that visitation?

So we're, again, still certainly looking to the opposition, who are the experts in this particular field, to provide us with some perspective to allow that access for loved ones, but and not just have a blanket closure of visitation access for family members. And so we'll continue to work on that.

Thank you for the robust discussion. As a physician that worked on the front lines of COVID my life was flipped upside down for three years. I worked more during those three years than I ever worked in my life. I had to stay away from my own family members because in the beginning, healthcare workers were considered to be the source of infections for others. I have a brother and sister who are physicians.

So my family was split apart for almost six months, and we couldn't see each other. And I was working in a very rural area of Taft, and I got working through the icus, surge, hospitals, you name it. But the one thing that hits me hard is when we especially- I will never forget this case. It was an elderly woman that decided to go comfort care. She had succumbed from COVID and I was standing in front of her in my bunny suit of PPE.

I lived in PPE for three years. I still have scars on my face from how much PPE I had on. And I remember, you know, you sit there, I had my hand over her wrists, feeling her heart rate as it was going slower and slower. And, you know, it felt inhumane to me that the last image in her brain was going to be a person that didn't even look human. And I did something in that moment where.

And she had verbalized this to me before, and I took off my mask because I wanted her to see a human before she passed away. You're right, the stories of COVID have still not come out. I'm still healing from those three years as a physician. I'm still not over everything that I saw through my eyes and what we had to go through.

My heart goes out to public health officials that worked stringently and diligently to meet all of the standards that were changing on a second's notice. And the reality of that is we didn't know. We didn't know what the impact would be. But moving forward, my biggest concern is a SARS CoV-3. When is that gonna happen, and what is that impact gonna bring? And where is our post?

And where is our post COVID-19 digest task force that looks at all of what happened during COVID-19 and make sure that we strengthen and get ready for something else that might be on the horizon. There is so much that the medical community learned from this pandemic, and we're still learning. We still don't know the impacts of COVID-19 on people. And every day we're learning something new. There is so much, but my plea goes out that regardless, it's the humanity piece. It's the piece that we realize that we're still human.

Protocols are necessary, but at the same time, we are human. And that patient that died, and I did not want her to die without seeing a human face, that's humanity, guys. And there has to be a level of humanity that we bring. So I encourage, thank you for this legislation. I will be supporting it today, but I encourage ongoing conversations where we really look at how we provide healthcare but also taken to the human portion.

And like you were saying, your advocacy patients need to have access to what's happening because they are often and only the biggest advocates for their family members. So with that, I will go ahead and move forward. We still don't have a quorum, so we will be acting as a Subcommitee and we will be voting on this later. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Appreciate the opportunity. Anybody who has been a caregiver, as you and I have talked about, I have with my family and who experienced during that, those three years, the inability to make that personal connection, there are long lasting impacts of those decisions as well. Knowing that our public health officials were always acting in the best interest of our collective public health. So we have to figure this out. Appreciate it, and ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to agenda item number four, AB 2410. Assemblymember Wallis meal program senior citizens.

Ready for me.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 2410. With rising food costs, it's vital that we provide flexible solutions for our seniors who are vulnerable to food insecurity. The state currently has two meal programs for seniors who face food insecurity, the congregate meals program and the home delivered nutrition program, both administered by the Department of Aging.

Can we pause real quick to establish a quorum? I'm so sorry. All right, can we go ahead and call roll?

[Roll Call]

Can we go ahead and call for consent? Motion moved by Assemblymember Cervantes seconded by Assemblymember Friedman.

Item number one. AB 1989 by Assemblymember Mathis. Motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations with the recommendation to the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that was four votes. We're gonna leave it open for additional Members. Assembly Wallis, you can continue.

These meal programs are part of the state's implementation of the Older Americans Act of 1965. During COVID to protect seniors, many cities provided meals to go rather than congregate, and with this change, they reported serving significantly more seniors. It's important that we take lessons from the pandemic to improve our government services. This Bill will continue to provide the to go option for seniors who are food insecure. Many seniors are required to take prescriptions during mealtimes, and these schedules can be different than congregant meal schedules.

Cities in my district have reported a significant increase in seniors served when they were able to provide meals to go. We should take this lesson and improve our services for seniors. This Bill will allow our local food service programs to continue with the flexibility to provide to go meals that many seniors have come to rely on. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me today is Will Kolbow from the city manager of the City of Calimesa.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee on Aging and Long Term Care. Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of Assembly Bill 2410. My name is Will Kolbow, City manager for the City of Calimesa, a City of approximately 11,000 residents in Riverside County. The COVID-19 pandemic was devastating on many fronts, and it forced both public and private sectors to quickly pivot the way they do business. In this process, we discovered new and innovative ways to deliver services to our residents.

The senior meal program at the City of Calamissa Senior center is an excellent example of the pandemic forcing a change in a program which resulted in something much better than had existed before. When the pandemic hit, our large senior community, many of which are on fixed incomes, needed alternatives to get their required nutrition.

Family Services Association, our senior services provider, instituted a grab and go meal program wherein our seniors could pick up without leaving their vehicle, nutritionally balanced meals that could then be prepared at their convenience. The program now serves over 160 people per week, far exceeding our usual attendance of 10 to 15 for pre pandemic congregate meals. Additionally, as our senior center reopened foreign person activity, we've seen great increases in participation for senior programs, including bingo, arts and crafts, and a very popular fit after 50.

Many of our patrons learned of our new programs as a result of their participation in the Grab and go meal program, since they would not have otherwise come to our center. The city learned in October that the Grab and Go program would be eliminated as it was only allowed due to the pandemic and is not allowed under current laws governing our meal program.

City staff updated the City Council about this in November, and many seniors have expressed great concern about the possibility of the grab and go program going away, many of which rely heavily on the program. We appreciate Assemblymember Wallis's efforts in crafting this legislation to allow this critical program for our senior community to continue. I asked the Committee to support AB 2410 to provide additional nutrition options for our seniors throughout the state. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anybody in support?

California in support.

Thank you so much. Anyone in opposition? All right, seeing none, I'll bring you back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? Thank you so much. Well, thank you so much, Assemblymember Wallis, for bringing this forward. I think there are some great gains for service delivery and senior nutrition services, and this is so common sense. The opportunity to educate those who use a service towards other potential aging services is a bonus byproduct.

Would you like to close?

I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you so much. So, motion is due pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Item number four. AB 2410 [Roll Call]

And that is four votes. We will leave it open for absent Members. We will now move on to Assemblymember Ortega. AB 2685, older individuals case management services.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 2685 today. AB 2685 would establish a pilot program administered by the California Department of Aging in multiple regions of the state to expand case management services to older individuals. CDA currently administers various programs that serve older individuals, defined as persons 60 years of age or older.

However, CDA lacks proper funding to support the rapidly growing population of older Californians, specifically low income seniors who need community based supportive services such as case management programs. Currently, these programs are only funded through the federal Older Americans Act, which has remained essentially flat for the past decade, and the state offers no matching funds. This lack of funding has led to the economic insecurity for older adult households in California, resulting in high risk for repeat hospitalizations, falls, depression, anxiety, housing loss and homelessness.

Case management and visiting programs are extremely effective in improving health outcomes for older adults. By expanding these services, California can help reduce the risk of negative health outcomes for older adults and improve their overall quality of life. I understand this is a policy committee and not a budget committee, and I understand we're in a deficit.

But also we want to remind that, you know, ourselves and myself included, that we are the fifth largest economy in the world and need to be investing in our senior population. Today testifying with me are two witnesses, Faith Battles with the Alameda County Social Services Agency and Wendy Peterson, Director of the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County.

Thank you. Good afternoon Chair Bains, Members of the Committee, and community members. My name is Faith Battles, Assistant Agency Director of Adult and Aging Services with Alameda County Social Services Agency. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of AB 2685, a bill the county is proud to be co sponsoring. Through the master plan on Aging in CA 2030, the state has taken aggressive action to meet the needs of California's rapidly growing older adult population.

One element of these efforts that deserves more focus is case management services. Case management supports people with complex issues to work towards solutions that complement their medical care by connecting them to essential services, helping them with their activities of daily living, and supporting them in building or reconnecting with their friends or family. Ultimately, these services enable older adults to maintain an independent lifestyle and avoid more expensive institutionalization.

Case management is a cost effective and powerful tool for improving lives and reducing overall healthcare costs, but the state's investment in these services, which are mostly funded by the Federal Government today, has been lacking to this point. State funding has begun to rebound after being completely eliminated in 2008 and 2009 with a multi year state general fund augmentation provided in the 2022 Budget act, but these funds are not specifically dedicated to case management services.

AB 2685 will create a demonstration project in up to four counties and multiple regions of the state to operate and analyze the success of dedicated state funded case management programs overseen by the California Department of Aging. We hope this model can be replicated and expanded over time to further address unmet needs in this population statewide. For these reasons, I urge your support of AB 2685 and thank Assemblymember Ortega for championing this effort. Thank you for your time and attention.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, good afternoon. My name is Wendy Peterson. I'm the Director of the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County, representing over 40 organizations that provide social and health services to older adults in our county. Ours is one of five counties where the case management program is provided. The program fills a gap by serving older adults who don't fit into-- they don't fit neatly into the eligibility criteria of other programs. They may not qualify for Medi-Cal.

They may need expert guidance in making the application for Medi-Cal, or perhaps they're spending down. Because economic insecurity increases as older adults age, they are least able to afford the supports that they need when they most need them. And that was the case of Mr. M, a 72 year old blind Asian American man with numerous health issues. When he was referred to JC, one of the case management programs in Berkeley, he had been priced out of his apartment. He had no family.

He was extremely fearful given his blindness, but also the increasing incidence of Asian hate crimes. The case manager worked with him, got him on Medi-Cal, and IHSS and CalFresh, found suitable housing for him, Meals on Wheels and a friendly visitor. He has been stable for many years and his living situation case manager checks in periodically with his worker and with the apartment manager and steps in when needed. Mr. M is no longer fearful. He feels safe. He's getting regular medical care.

His worker is caring and dependable, and his friendly visitor is now a friend. We're seeing more and more older adults who have serious health needs, functional limitations and cognitive impairments, and there's a really pressing need to increase capacity in this case management program. But because there's no data to show impact, I think the program remains a best kept secret, and funding levels, as you've heard, have been static. Our coalition is really excited about this legislation. Thank you, Assemblymember Ortega, for sponsoring it.

It's an opportunity, we think, to demonstrate the power of community case management and this particular program and perhaps make the case for future funding. So thank you for your time, and we hope that you will support this bill. I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you so much. Others to join on in support? Thank you.

Hernan Molina, city of West Hollywood, in support of the bill.

Can--hold the mic up so you're not punching--there you go.

Thank you. Okay, hopefully this is better. I'm Michael Costa, Executive Director of the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging. I got through at that time. We support the bill.

Rick Watts, City of West Hollywood Disabilities Advisory Board. We support the bill.

I, John Allendorfer, resident of the City of West Hollywood, support this bill, and I'm an advisor on the Older Adults Board.

Chelsea, Vice Mayor, City of West Hollywood, support for the bill. Thank you.

Anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? All right, bring it back to the Committee for any discussion. Seeing none.

I'd like to thank West Hollywood for being in the House.

Yeah.

Same.

Yeah. Thank you for this bill, Assembly Member Ortega. Case management is a component of health and wellness. Improving social determinants of health are something that we often overlook. Thank you so much for that. I know in my own town, in my district of Bakersfield, we've been working on this as well for the past five years, and I look forward to more and more work that we can do in this space. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. So motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Clerk can call the roll.

Item Number Seven: AB 2685: moved by Assembly Member Friedman; seconded by Mr. Rodriguez. [Roll Call].

So that's four votes and we will leave it open for other members to join on. Thank you, Assemblymember Ortega. Next we have, oh yes, there we have Assemblymember Patterson. We have AB 3207, Assemblymember Patterson. The Secure Seniors Online Protection Act, you may begin.

Thank you very much Chair and Members, I actually forgot I was on this Committee for a second. I'm in four committees at the same time. So I said oh, I should just go sit up there and vote. But I'd like to present here AB 3207. First of all, I'd like to say this was high school bill contest that I put out and Mister Cody over here was the winner of that.

And it was a really great idea and they'll explain some of the story in a second. But I was actually flying to San Diego last week and I was listening to a podcast, New York Times The Daily, where they went over a actually a retired law enforcement officer here in California who wanted to sell his timeshare and he wanted to sell it for $20,000. And there was this agreement allegedly made.

What ended up happening over the next 18 months is he actually wired $900,000 over a year and a half over this elaborate scam that was put on by the cartel. And it was really a shocking story, and it was not- I was not intending this being part of my testimony here today, but it just goes to show how easy it is to rip off not just senior citizens, basically anybody.

And there are elaborate schemes that are created to basically take all of our hard earned money here. And so it's according to AARP, exploitation of people over 60 lose $28.3 billion annually across the nation to scams. And so because of that, what my legislation does is it creates a hotline for seniors to be able to call in and verify and get some assistance when they get strange calls like that.

And I think a lot of times in the case that I realized on the New York Times podcast, is that this gentleman really didn't have anybody to confide in, didn't have any trust person. Hey, I already wired them 10,000, 20,000, 30,000. You know, his family kind of thought he was, you know, being ripped off, but he kind of kept going. And so I think if we had a hotline on that where people could call in, it would really save a lot of.

A lot of this going on. And so with that, I just wanted to welcome Cody and Mike to talk about some of their experience. Thank you.

Alrighty, I'll start off. Thank you, Chair and esteemed Committee Members. All right. I'm Cody Sheets, and it's an honor to be here today. I'm a senior at Oak Ridge High School in El Dorado Hills. Community service is a big part of who I am, especially through my involvement as an Eagle Scout. In the fall, I'll be starting college at CSU Monterey. I want to express my gratitude to Assemblyman Joe Patterson for giving young people like me a chance to be heard through initiatives like the Assembly Members high school bill idea contest.

It's been an incredible opportunity to learn and contribute to meaningful change. The idea for AB 3207, the Secure Seniors Online Protection Act, came from personal experiences in my own family. My dad, who is a CHP officer, fell victim to a serious phone scam. And even my grandmother, who is 77, has been targeted several times. These experiences made me realize how urgent it is to take action. If someone as trained to suspect crime as my dad could be scammed, it shows how vulnerable anyone can be.

Creating a hotline available to all seniors, senior citizens, where they can report a scam, seek advice, and ask questions if they suspect they may be falling victim to an online fraud or scam can make all the difference. This bill is about safeguarding our seniors and community from exploitation. That's why I'm urging you to support it. Thank you for your time and consideration, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 3207. Thank you again.

Thank you, Chair and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Mike Sheets. I recently retired from the California Highway Patrol, July of last year. Twenty-one years of service, and I fell victim to a scam that turned my world upside down. It started with an early morning phone call. The caller ID showed Wells Fargo Bank, and the calm male voice on the other end claimed to be from the bank, alerting me to suspicious charges in Chicago. The caller knew so much about me.

My full name, occupation, address, social security number, and my bank details. It was my first day of vacation, so I was caught off guard with my son, Cody, and my wife volunteering in Africa. I couldn't help but wonder if they had made charges on the East Coast during their journey, I listened to the caller's calm and professional demeanor, and he assured me he would send me a new card. No biggie, right? This has happened to me before.

So the next day, the same person from Wells Fargo called again, claiming someone was trying to access my online banking. He wanted me to reset my username and password with him. I told him, I have to call you back. Then the caller's tone shifted, and he yelled, you blankety blank pig. Meaning he knew I was a cop. And that's when I was like, oh, I'm in trouble. So he continued hurling insults and harmful threats, saying, don't try to hide, I'm hacking your accounts.

Within seconds, the real Wells Fargo texted me an alert, and two other banks flagged fraudulent activity as well. The caller was racking up thousands at this point. My experience taught me a hard lesson about the sophistication and audacity of these scammers. They prey on trust and catch even the most vigilant individuals off guard. If it could happen to someone like me, trained to detect crime, it could happen to our most vulnerable population, that's seniors.

That's why legislations like AB 3207, the Secure Seniors Online Protection Act, is so vital. When these situations happen, quick action is needed. A hotline will be a lifeline to help seniors navigate all of this. Thank you for your time and consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 3207. And together, let's stand against online exploitation and protect our seniors. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone to add on in support?

H California in support.

Peter Hansel, advocacy volunteer for AARP California. AARP is in support due to the lateness by which they adopted the position. The letter didn't get into the analysis, so I apologize for that.

I'm Elaine Mott, Cody's grandma, and I've been scammed numerous times with fraud. So I support AB 3207.

Good afternoon, Emily Udell with the California Credit Union League. In support.

Angie Sheets. I support.

Anybody else in support? Anybody in opposition? Wonder who's going to come up on that. With that, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Any discussion?

Well, first I want to thank Cody and the witness for coming and giving your personal stories. Thank you so much for bringing this. I'm going to certainly support the bill today. I think it's a great idea. I do want to say that there's also responsibility from some of our online marketplaces to do a much better job of vetting their own sites.

When I go to Facebook and I see clear and obvious scams, dubious products, people's reviews warning other people being wiped away as soon as they're posted, you know, it really makes me really angry. You know, when we see this in plain sight and we know that people are falling victim. If I can see it, Facebook and X and others can see it, and they should do a much better job policing their own sites and keeping their users safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Friedman. Great job, Cody, on that. And I know you have proud grandmother right behind you who's really happy that you wrote this bill. Scams are real. And, you know, you were right. The amount of information that they know about you is just staggering. I was working in a clinic, seeing patients, and I get a call from someone saying, you failed to show up to court. You were supposed to be an expert witness.

This person, I knew everything about where I worked, knew I was a physician, knew everything, the same thing. And it was like, you have to show up at this location on your lunch break because of x, y, and z. And I'm like, okay. I was so busy. I was a physician. I was working with so many patients. Like, okay, I'll be there. I wrote down the address put down. And then my dad called me. He's like, hey, what are you doing for lunch?

I'm like, dad, this person, apparently I failed to show up for court. zero, my God, I gotta go to this address. My dad's like, please don't, please do not show up there. And can you please call your DA right now? Because that does not sound right at all. And I'm glad my dad did that. So this is impacting not just financially, but physically too. You can call someone to show up anywhere. So it's a big, big concern to the community.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Patterson, for bringing this bill forward. Anything to close.

In my office, Emily Watson was a big advocate for bringing this bill out of all the many great ideas we have in my district. And it's obviously a fantastic idea. And also, I don't really consider Mike a senior citizen, but with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Awesome. So motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Sorry, we have to wait for a motion.

Thank you. Motion by Assemblymember Rodriguez and seconded by Assemblymember Friedman. And motion is due pass and refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection.

Item number eight, AB 3207. [Roll Call]

Okay, so that's four. We'll leave it open for others to join on later. Thank you so much.

Okay, you may proceed when ready.

All right, I will-- Thank you guys so much. I will start out with AB 2620. So good afternoon, Members. AB 2620 reduces the number on the California Commission on Aging from 25 to 18 and requires commissioners to have professional, lived, or academic expertise related to aging. It also defines the Commission as an advisory body relating to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act and allows the Commission to engage in federal advocacy efforts. The Commission has had a statutory composition of 25 members since its inception.

During its existence, it has never had all commissioned seats appointed. However, quorum is dictated by the number of those comprised to serve, including vacancies, making it difficult to conduct business. By reducing the number of serving commissioners allows the Commission to more effectively establish a quorum and conduct business, and requiring expertise related to aging for all future appointees allows for more meaningful advocacy moving forward.

Redefining the Commission as an advisory body allows for flexibility in ways in which commissioners may participate in meetings and will likely allow for more geographic diversity on the Commission. With me today is Karol Swartzlander, Executive Director of the California Commission on Aging and the sponsor of AB 2620.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Karol Swartzlander, Executive Director of the California Commission on Aging I'm very grateful to Assemblymember Bains for her support in authoring AB 2620, a bill seeking to update the welfare and institutions code related to the structure and operations of the Commission on Aging. As I shared an early, earlier testimony, the Commission is established in state statute to serve as the principal advocate for older Californians.

But what I forgot to mention is that commissioners represent the geographic and cultural diversity of the state and bring a wealth of lived and professional experience both within and outside the field of aging. So, as mentioned, currently the Commission's required by law to be composed of 25 commissioners. However, we haven't had more than 18 members since 2008. Yet, pursuant to a 2011 opinion by the Attorney General, the number of commissioners required to establish a quorum is based on 25 appointees rather than 18.

I want to thank the Aging and Long Term Care Committee for demonstrating the challenges associated with establishing a quorum. And just note that we have to have 13 versus 10 of a simple majority to establish our quorum. So AB 2620 seeks to change the composition from 25 to 18 members, reflecting the historical and what we believe to be the optimal size.

The bill also amends the governor's appointment process to be more efficient, it reflects the importance of the area agencies on aging by ensuring two appointments are nominated from the area agency on aging directors or the AAA Council of California. And finally, the bill deletes outdated provisions, for example, obsolete language related to the statewide legislative senior advocates, also known as the California Senior Legislature, is removed. CSL is now an independent advocacy organization responsible for selecting its delegates.

So AB 2620 may not be the most exciting piece of legislation that you will consider this year, but it's very exciting for us. It will better position the to Commission to be a more efficient and responsive organization, supporting the development of an age friendly California and implementation of the master plan for aging. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

And with that, anyone else in support? Come forward.

Jason Gabhart with the Alzheimer's Association, in support.

Michael Costa with the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging, in support.

Selena Coppi Hornback with the California Assisted Living Association, in support.

Anyone else in the room in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it to the Committee for any questions, comments? Seeing none, I believe there is a motion and a second. So with that, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, call the roll.

Item number five, AB 2620. Motion by Assemblymember Friedman, second by Assemblymember Rodriguez. Motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, we'll leave the roll call open. Next one we have AB 2636 when you're ready.

Awesome. Awesome. So good afternoon. Good afternoon, Members. AB 2636 modernizes terms of use throughout the Older Californians Act and repeals obsolete provisions. It also updates findings and declarations relating to statistics and issues of concern for older Californians. This measure also increases flexibility to area agencies on aging to develop and deliver community based programs.

As we build towards a future with a rapidly increasing population of older Californians, we need to have California codes reflect current terms of use and be reflective of current programs meeting the needs of those aging in the state. Modernizing the Older Californians Act is important for the state and its population at all ages. The California governor's master plan for aging has given us new framework moving forward. Language is important, and updating current terms of use and identifying outdated language is a first step towards regular legislation.

In this code setting section, flexibility in program delivery allows our diverse state to meet the needs of individuals locally and in a place and space that meets their unique needs. With me today is Michael Costa, Executive Director of California Association of Area Agencies on Aging.

Thank you. You actually say that better than I do. I'm going to refer to it C4A, I think, from here on out. So I'm Michael Costa. I'm Executive Director of C4A. We are an Association that represents the 31 out of the 33 area agencies on aging in California. And area agencies on aging are responsible for directly or indirectly, managing a number of programs that really originated either in the Older Americans Act or the Older Californians Act.

So I appreciate very much being here today. Thank you to Chair Bains and Members of the Committee for being here, for allowing me to speak. I think this Bill basically does three things. As Chair Bains has said, it upgrades the terms and updates so that we use current language. It also removes some obsolete provisions. But I want to focus on two things that it does which actually are very exciting and need to be noted.

The first is expands the policy, the prime directive of the Mello-Granlund Older Californians Act. Historically, the focus was on older frail individuals and who are also vulnerable. Now the focus will be extended to include older individuals who have the greatest social and economic needs. And when you think about that, that's actually an expansion of the scope.

It's also consistent with federal regulation and federal law, which is also, and federal policymakers who have kind of expanded the catchment for what we should be doing as aging policy makers. And so that's on the policy side; on the program side.

The language in the Bill that's being recommended actually recognizes the fact that programs have actually also increased in scope since 1996, which was when Mello-Grunland was originally passed, and that we want to make sure that the scope of what people, you know, what area agencies and other aging service providers are actually providing is reflected in the act. So we now want to add language that recognizes the importance of the integration of social and healthcare services as essential to being able to age in place.

We want to recognize the importance of programs related to economic security, to culturally sensitive and relevant programs, and also to actually look at what was originally called linkages in the act. And which has expanded into case management, social connectedness, and other kinds of outreach activities that really would help deal with a number of problems that older individuals face today.

So this is, I think what's exciting about this is that we actually are positioning the aging service network in California to be able to, within the scope of the act, be able to better address the issues that older individuals face. So I would ask, respectively, for an aye vote on SB 2636.

There's a motion second. There's a motion a second. With that, anyone else in the room for support, come forward.

Jason Gabhart with the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Peter Hansel, on behalf of AARP California in support of the Bill. Again, due to the lateness of our position, we, our letter is not reflected in the analysis. I want to acknowledge that.

Kathy Mossburg, representing LeadingAge California, also in support.

Monica Kirkland with the Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County in strong support.

Good afternoon. Richard White, chair of the advisory council to the Napa Solano Area Agency on aging, following up a letter of support with another vote for support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee, but there is a motion in a second. Any questions? No. With that Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I'd like to ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, call the roll.

item number six, AB 2636 motion was by Assemblymember Friedman, second by Rodriguez. Do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have three. We'll leave a row open for missing Members. Thank you.

These two. Okay, motion. We will need a motion for AB 2075 and then a motion for AB 2207. Clerk, can you open the roll?

[Roll Call]

All righty, we'll leave the call open for another five minutes. If there are any Members in house that they can come over and vote. Calling Mr. Patterson. Calling Mr. Patterson.

[Roll Call]