Senate Standing Committee on Business, Professions and Economic Development

Okay. We are going to start, obviously, as a Committee of ourselves here. But I don't want to keep Mister Alanis waiting. You want to go ahead and present to us as a Committee and then we'll entertain motions and whatnot later when we get a quorum, if that's all right with you.

If you would like to bring your witnesses to the front table, you can definitely do that. Yep. Recognize a couple of these folks? Welcome to the Senate business, professions and economic development committee. Great to have you here. We're going to start with the Assemblymember making his presentation and then lead witnesses. We will come to you.

You'll each have two minutes to share your thoughts with us. And then we'll see if there are any lead opposition witnesses as well. And then we'll see who else in the room. We'll come back to the dais and then close out with your Assemblymember. Go right ahead when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and colleagues. I want to thank the chair, staff and Committee staff for analyzing and working on this important bill. AB 1902 would require pharmacy dispensers to provide accessible prescription labels to patients who are blind or have low vision. Current law requires pharmacy dispensers to provide translated labels in several languages besides English.

The Board of Pharmacy has added translations for Spanish, Chinese, Korean, Russian and more. However, those who are blind struggle to read their medication bottles, which inhibits their Independence and has led to many hospital trips for patients who mixed up prescriptions or misdosed. States like Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and Minnesota have passed similar bills to address this inequity.

Many pharmacy chains like CV's, Walgreens, Rite Aid have already implemented labels with large print, braille or text to speech technology. AB 1902 is a common sense measure that the blind community has advocated for many years. I am pleased to introduce two witnesses today from the California Council of the Blind. Today we have Regina Brink and Jeff Tom.

Nice to have you both here. Whichever one of you would like to go first, go right ahead and we'll give you a couple minutes. Okay, there you go. It's on. You can just speak. We'll be able to hear you just fine.

Madam Chair and Members, Jeff Tom, Director of governmental affairs, California Council of the Blind. As the Assemblymember said, 10 years ago, the Legislature addressed a health and safety concern for non English speaking Californians by requiring pharmacies to provide prescription drug information in threshold languages. AB 1902 would provide similar requirements for those with print disabilities.

Medication errors are a serious problem throughout California. These errors can lead to serious illness and even death. This problem is especially prevalent among people with print disabilities. For example, there are 800,000 Californians with, senior Californians with vision loss. These issues also apply to people with cognitive disabilities.

It is estimated that this prescription drug information can help many, many Californians. This bill would enable a person with a print disability, upon request, to obtain prescription drug information in a format they can use. My own wife, for example, who's also blind, nearly ended up in the hospital due to the absence of accessible prescription drug information.

The most important benefit for the receipt of this information is, of course, the safety of people with print disabilities. In addition, however, having access to this information can mean the difference between staying in one's own home and relocating to an institutional setting. Put simply, the bill will enhance the quality of life for Californians with print disabilities.

Thus, we urge this Committee to enhance the health, safety, and Independence with people for people with print disabilities by passing AB 1902. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Go ahead. We'll be able to hear you. The MIC's right in front of you there.

Okay. Kira Ashby and Committee Members, I'm Regina Brink, Assistant Director of governmental affairs, and most of us take for granted the ability to read labels and directions. But for people with vision loss, this can be a daily struggle.

Most people with vision loss have some usable sight and only require large print labels, and that's the most cost effective accommodation. It's estimated that only about five patients per year, for the average pharmacy, would require more expensive audio labels.

My husband, who's also totally blind, takes about six medications, and it turns out his blood pressure pills feel the same as his pain medicine. Can you imagine what would happen if he got those confused? Jennifer shared her story with us, and I'd like to read it to you now. She says.

I was recently prescribed steroids and antibiotics, plus inhalers for a lower respiratory infection. I could not consult with the pharmacy because my ride was leaving and I had no other way home and no one at home to assist me with vision.

I used some scanning software to try to read the label, and I was confident I was supposed to take one tablet per day. After it seemed I'd been taking it for an awfully long time.

I had someone actually read it, and it turns out I was supposed to take one tablet twice a day, and I had also confused my rescue inhaler with my regular inhaler. Accessible labels could have resolved my health situation faster with proper dosing.

This is only one of the many stories we have heard from patients who are blind or have low vision. And as Jeff said, some resulted in more serious outcomes, hospitalizations or worse. AB 1902 means our state will be in compliance with existing law and it also means equity in health care for a growing number of Californians.

This matter is urgent, so please pass this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Regina. It's really nice to have you here. Yes. Okay. Good to see you. It's so nice to have you. Okay, so let's see. Is there anybody in the room who opposes the bill, who opposes 1902? Who would like to come forward and speak? Seeing no one.

Are there folks in the room who would like to meet too in support of AB 1902? Name, organization.

Thank you very much. Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians here in support.

Whitney Francis with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support.

Good morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists as well as the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, both in support. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Is there anybody else in the room who is not lead testimony but would like to to testify in opposition? Seeing no one, we will come back to the dais. Colleagues, are there any questions or comments?

I move the bill.

All right, bill is moved. Assemblymember, would you like to make any closing comments?

I would just like to thank my witnesses, Regina and Jeff, for coming in and making that great bringing us into your guys world and letting us know a little bit more what we need to do to help and be there and provide equity for everybody else.

And with that, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you all.

We don't quite have a quorum yet. We need one more Member. We will hold on to Senator Niello's motion until we get that quorum. And thank you for the bill. We're gonna, we're gonna help you out. Regina, give us just 1 second. We have our sergeants coming to help you. Thank you both again for being here.

Have a great week. All right, we don't have any other authors and we are looking for one more Member of the BMP Committee to grab a quorum. So for those in the building who have a bill in front of us, now would be a great time to head down.

For those in the building who are able to join us, we could use one more, Senator.

Alright, great. We are going to call the roll and establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a motion on the immediate past item from Senator Niello. Is that motion still good, sir?

Yes, it is.

All right, can we go ahead and call the roll? This is on item three. Assemblymember Alanis AB 1902. Prescription drug labels which we just heard. Go ahead.

Motion is do pass to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that has seven. We're gonna put it on the on hold and come back to it. And then we're gonna go ahead and take up our consent calendar. Now, colleagues, if I have a motion. Motion. Motion by Senator Archuleta. Let's call the roll.

Item number one. Item number two. And item number eight. [Roll Call]

Okay. Also seven. We're gonna hold the roll open for that one as well. That takes us through our consent calendar. And now we'll be holding out till we get some authors.

I will note for colleagues here that item 10, AB 2578 by Assembly Member Flora, has been pulled for today. All right, let's go for it. Welcome, assemblywoman. Happy to have you. Happy Monday. Yes, go ahead and bring your lead witnesses up. They can sit at the table. Good morning.

All right, assemblymember, whenever you're ready, go ahead and get us started.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, today I'm pleased to present AB 2262, which would encourage cities and counties to adopt small business utilization plans to leverage local contracting activities to support small businesses and local economic growth.

Small businesses have demonstrated a unique ability to fill specific business needs, fill gaps in supply chains, bring innovative products and ideas into the marketplace, and help American products enter global markets.

While small businesses serve as an essential foundation of the California economy, their economic contributions could be more significant and strengthen local economies if they had access to city and county government procurement opportunities.

The small business utilization plans promoted under this bill would include a 25% minimum goal for small business procurement participation and include local procurement incentives, flexible solicitation requirements, unbundling of large contracts, and training for local staff to implement successful programs to help local governments succeed.

The bill also provides General authority to the Office of the Small Business Advocate to support local government small business procurement activities. Further, AB 2262 requires an annual data request to help the state learn more about how to support this critical economic development tool.

Many small businesses in California would be thrilled to partner with their local cities and counties, but often do not have the technical expertise to navigate the different processes. It is vital that we enable competition for our small businesses and make it easier for them to thrive in our economy.

Here to speak in support of AB 2262 are Pat Fong Kushida on behalf of the Cal Asian Chamber and Julian Caniete on behalf of the Hispanic chamber.

Good morning. Hello. Welcome. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, on behalf of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce, the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the California African American Chamber of Commerce, I want to express our appreciation for Assemblymember Reyes for authoring AB 2262. We have been doing this work for a long time.

I've been doing this work since 1998, and invariably, you know, the state is first, best in class, and first in class around ensuring that there are contract opportunities for our small businesses at the state level.

But invariably, as we're starting to do this work up and down Northern California in a lot of local cities and counties, we find that there are a lot of best in class, and I would actually say worst in class and. But in some cases, some jurisdictions simply don't have a small business utilization program.

And so we felt very strongly that this was an important economic development tool for the State of California and for our hundreds of thousands of small businesses that can really grow and prosper if they've had the opportunity to get into a contract opportunity. And I will say this, I'll use myself as that small business.

I run a nonprofit. We're a Chamber of Commerce. But prior to getting my first public contract, I was a staff of eight. We're now a staff of 42. And because we got our first contract, we're able to employ folks. They pay taxes in their local jurisdictions, they raise their families in their communities. This is an important bill.

So I just want to say thank you to Assemblymember Reyes for authoring this. It's really near and dear to my heart. So thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Ashby and Committee Members Julie Kennedy, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and thank you for the opportunity this morning to address you on what we feel is a very important bill, AB 2262.

I wish to thank Assembly women and along with my colleagues at the California Asian Chamber, in the California African American Chamber, wish to thank Assemblywoman Eloise Gomez Reyes for her unwavering leadership on AB 2262 and all the good work that she and her staff have put into the bill as well.

AB 2262 is very simply requires the Office of Small Business advocate within Gobiz to collaborate with local agencies on strategies to increase small business participation in local procurement opportunities and authorizes a local agency to establish a small business utilization program to increase small business participation in those procurement opportunities.

Cities, counties and other government districts contract for billions of dollars in goods and services and information technology. We all know that public money spent closer to home would have the most significant multiplier effect on their community's economic ecosystems, but we need to ensure that local companies can compete effectively for those contracts.

AB 2262 model would assist busy local government staff by establishing optional small business utilization program for local governments and set standards for a comprehensive plan that addresses a range of common small business procurement challenges.

The California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and our Member chambers throughout the state feel strongly that local taxpayer dollars should be reinvested in the communities that local governments represent so that their community's economy grows locally, creating jobs and a better quality of life for their citizens, like GO 156 with investor owned utilities, and AB 2019, which establishes a minimum 25% small business participation for state contracts.

And recently AB 1392, which requires hospitals with over 50 million in operating expenses to report their small business diversity, spend and establish plans for the increase of their spend. AB 2262 basically says the same.

Your local governments need and should be investing in their small business community if for no other reason, to grow and build a strong economic and greater tax base. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote this morning, and thank you for the opportunity to address you.

All right, we'll ask you two to stay put for just a second, and we'll see if there is a lead witness in opposition, seeing no one will take the me too testimony in favor. Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles area Chamber of Commerce and support. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Anybody else in favor of the bill? How about in opposition, but not a lead witness? Okay, great. We'll bring it back to the dais. Colleagues, do you have any comments, questions for the author? Go ahead. Mister Archuleta.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing the bill forward. I think it's a great bill. I'm going to move it at appropriate time. My question is, how can we help the people that have trouble with the English language? Because I can see the minority communities, they really need help and someone to walk them through the system.

The challenges they find in the computers, the challenges they find on the phone, trying to reach someone at the other end and put that business plan together. Are we helping them in that direction as well?

I can address that. So, you know, one of the reasons why we feel Gobiz is the perfect opportunity for this program to land is because you all and Goviz provides robust technical assistance and that network of technical assistance centers throughout California, and a lot of those centers are focused on ensuring that minority owned businesses have equal access and equal opportunities.

So language is taken into consideration. So the network of technical assistance providers that Goviz currently invests in is really going to help on the ground the kind of businesses that you just described in our local communities.

Thank you, Senator. You're extremely right. We've seen that increase in languages across the state, not just Spanish, but when you go into the Asian community, we've seen the increase of a need for there. And I think the Senate and Assembly made it loud and clear that we need to continue to help these businesses.

When you sent back the budget to the Governor saying no cuts to the tap program, and we appreciate that because those programs are important for us to be able to build the capacity within these small businesses that maybe have language barriers.

So we continue to work through that program and other programs in making sure that we're providing that capacity and making our business more competitive in language as well throughout the state.

Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I heard a motion in there seeing no one else from the die. Okay. Senator Niello.

I would have moved the bill, but Senator Archeleta, that beat me to it. I guess it's the a versus the n or whatever. Pat Fong Kushida has been involved in these activities for a long time here in Sacramento and in the state also. We've been friends for a very long time, and this is certainly a supportable bill.

I will support it. I do have one question, though, and that is what does, to the extent feasible, mean in the context of the bill relative to the 25% target?

I think if we have, and I'll let my witnesses also talk to this, if we have a hard, fast percentage, and it cannot, it's not feasible, then they would be in, they would not be compliant with the bill. So I think to that extent, to the extent that it is feasible, I think it would be proper language.

If there's anything else the witnesses would like to add to that, I may.

It depends on the local jurisdiction and it depends on the types of contracts and the amount of contracts that are brought. And we recognize that for some of these cities and counties, this is a fairly new program or fairly new concept to them.

And the goal setting is going to be very, I think, how I would say, important, based on jurisdiction.

And so for us anyway, we didn't want to overly subscribe that, because we recognize that a lot of local jurisdictions have their own priorities in terms of what they want to spend on and how they want to spend finding those local experts. Right.

We want to give them that flexibility to be able to homegrown their own before they have to get to that point.

And, Senator, I think a lot of it has to do on our part. Right. And this is our commitment to the bill and its success once it passes, is that there has to be that collaboration and that cooperation, not just with the state agency, but also between our chambers on the ground, the boots on the ground.

We've seen this with GO 156, right. We set a goal of 21% diverse spend. We are now at 42%. And that is all through collaboration and cooperation. But really, our chamber is taking the lead as well as our state chambers saying, hey, we are willing to work with you guys to reach these goals.

We know first year maybe we won't hit it, but second year we'll keep on working at it. So again, part of that is our commitment as well to the success of the bill.

Thank you for that. Thanks for the answer. Appreciate it.

All right, great. Would you like to close, assemblywoman?

Encouraging small business utilization plans will make it easier for small businesses to get access to critical resources. And I think they need to be part of our economy, and this is a great step. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, you have a motion from Senator Archuleta. And just in case that one should fail, a backup motion from Senator Niello. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate local government Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that has nine aye votes. We will leave it on call for our other colleagues when they get here. Thank you, assemblywoman. And thank you to these esteemed witnesses who I hope are rating Sacramento as first in class for small business. Yeah, you guys have a great week.

All right, Miss Schiavo, I understand you are presenting not only for yourself, but also for Miss Bonta. Is that correct? All right, you want to start? Yes. AB 1991 is first in file or do you want to start with hers?

Yes, that's fine. And I also want to make a plug for AB 2262 which I am requesting to be a joint author of and very big supporter as a former small business owner. So happy I got to see that go before me. So on to AB 1991. Good morning, Madam Chair Members.

And I wanted to present AB 1991 for the author today, Mia Bantu, who's not able to be here. She's accepted all of the amendments and the analysis, and these address the concerns of the medical board and ACOG. The board of Psychology will remove their opposition as soon as the amends are in print.

California faces a major shortage of health workers, and the state isn't producing enough new workers to meet future future needs. And the current health workforce does not match the diversity of the state.

In order to address workforce supply and diversity issues, the Legislature has enacted various scholarships and loan forgiveness programs that encourage healthcare providers to work in underserved areas in exchange for financial assistance or loan forgiveness. However, we currently do not have the data on how long they continue to work in underserved areas after the financial assistance ends.

This bill simply requires healthcare providers renewing their license online to provide their national provider identifier, if they have one. All other information in the renewal survey will remain optional.

This will allow the Department of Healthcare access and information to determine how long a provider stays in an underserved area and assess whether or not the loan forgiveness program are working as intended. Testifying and support is Vanessa Cajina, who is with Panethnic Health Network, and thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Vanessa Cajina with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California pan ethnic health network this morning. Pleased to be here in support of AB 1991.

This bill requires certain boards regulating healing arts licensees or registrants under DCA to provide the Department of Healthcare access and information with data necessary to assess whether loan repayment programs are working as they were intended to be.

HK administers several loan repayment programs that were established to increase diversity in the health workforce and encourage providers to serve in underserved areas. However, our ability to track data across licensing compared with programs intended to increase diversity in our workforce is lagging, with Latino and black workers, especially underrepresented in the health workforce.

AB 1991 would help to identify workforce supply and diversity problems to help improve impacts on health access, quality, and equity for our most underserved communities. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote appreciate assemblymember Bonta's leadership and assemblymember Schiava's presentation this morning.

All right, are there others here in opposition as their lead opposition? All right. Others here in support me too. Testimony come on forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Aaron Bone with the medical board of California just to thank the Committee staff and the author's office for working with us collaboratively to address our concerns and to confirm that we will be removing our opposition with the adoption of these amendments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody in opposition in the room that's not a lead witness? Great. We'll bring it back to the dais. Colleagues, any comments, questions, concerns? Senator Niello?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a comment that is kind of indirectly related, and that is the underrepresentation of black and brown people in the profession, not unique to this profession at all.

And I just have to say, as I have in connection with some of the reparations proposals, our K through 12 education system completely fails black and brown students, especially black students, who, according to a Cal Matters article I read a couple months ago, black students are the lowest performing cohort in the K-12 system, with the one exception of English language learners.

And it's not because of inherent ability, obviously. It's just that our K through 12 system in the State of California completely fails disadvantaged students, but particularly black and brown students, and especially black students. And unless we fix that, that isn't going to address this shortage long term. That's got to be addressed.

So I will state that every chance I get until I get some indication that others would like to work with me on trying to cure that injustice.

Okay. Seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Assemblywoman, during a time when our healthcare providers often do not come from the backgrounds of their patients, this is simply a measure to ensure that resources are used to provide culturally concordant care and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. Believe you have a motion from Senator Roth. We will call the roll.

Motion is do pass as amended, to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that is 90. We'll put it on call, wait for other colleagues. Thank you very much, both of you. Miss Schiavo, you wanna move on to your bill?

Yes. Thank you. So thank you again, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present AB 2015 to you today. I want to start by saying I'll be accepting the Committee amendments. AB 2015 is an important step to help address our nursing shortage.

The current process of nurse facility approvals for some programs depends on the nurse program to apply for faculty approval. Essentially, at the point where the candidate has been provided an offer letter, any hiccup and approval can derail the applicant search. AB 2015 fixes this by making the faculty approval process similar to teaching credentials.

AB 2015 will mean that a nurse can apply directly to the Board of Registered Nursing for approval, making the credential portable, instead of each school having to submit an application for faculty approval individually. Additionally, AB 2015 establishes a temporary approval process while a nursing program works to address any gaps in the faculty qualifications.

These changes will increase the RN training pipeline and help us train more RNs to provide the needed care for patients in our communities. Joining me is Marissa Clark, the Chief of Legislative affairs for the Board of Registered Nurses, to testify as well.

Welcome. You have two minutes. Go ahead and share your thoughts with us.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members, Marissa Clark, on behalf of the Board of Registered Nursing here, is a sponsor of AB 2015. This bill would allow the board to streamline its current faculty approval process, facilitate faculty mobility, and reduce some of the administrative burden on nursing programs.

The bill is not looking to override or supersede any statutory exemptions that are already in place for nursing programs who don't require the board's approval for their faculty.

Instead, we are seeking to improve the current process for the faculty members in the programs who do still have to go through our approval process by trying to make it less burdensome and more flexible for them. Under the current process, the board's faculty approval is tied to the pre-licensure program, not the individual applicant.

This means that when a faculty's approval is available or submitted, it's only available to the nursing program who submitted them to the board.

Having the approval process tied to the applicant rather than the nursing program would allow the board to provide upfront approval to the prospective faculty member that could then be used at any nursing program they wish to teach. Doing so would also allow nursing programs to instantly verify a prospective faculty's approval status.

At the same time, they would already be verifying their active RN license on the DCA license lookup website. Additionally, the bill would allow the board to remove some ongoing, onerous reporting requirements that are currently being shouldered by the nursing programs.

Our main goal for this bill is to make the faculty approval process more efficient and less burdensome for those that are subject to it, and we've very much appreciate the member for authoring it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone in the room who would be lead opposition to AB 2015? Seeing no one. Is there any? Me too. In support of AB 2015 in the room? Okay. Seeing no one, is there anybody in opposition in the room that isn't lead testimony? Great. Come back to the dais.

We have a motion. Senator Niello.

What is the difference between approved and unapproved schools?

Okay, so every board of nursing in the state. Every state has a public board of nursing, and part of their responsibility is to provide approval to the nursing programs within that state.

That approval essentially verifies that they are in compliance with that state's Nursing Practice act, because every state has a little bit of different rules when it comes to education, licensure, scope of practice, discipline, and it also ensures that anyone who graduates from that program is eligible to sit for the NCLEX, which is the examination that you take in order to enter the practice of nursing.

So most all schools are approved. I believe all states, maybe one or 2, may have a differing process, but have some type of approval. There is also accreditation, which is a separate process, but the approval process is just a government kind of ensuring compliance with the minimum state standards around nursing.

In that state, are there unapproved schools that are also accredited?

There could be certain state laws that allow accreditation to sub in for approval. In California it doesn't. Some states also require accreditation on top of approval, but accreditation looks at schools more from the national perspective in that they are looking at kind of the broader profession itself. Right. Nursing best practices, kind of constant improvement.

They aren't looking at that state specific public protection laws around nursing in terms of what's the scope of practice, what are the educational requirements? So they kind of go hand in hand together.

There is some overlap, for sure, but they look from two different lenses, one from kind of more of a compliance public protection and one from a broader kind of continuous improvement, like gold star type of lens, if that helps.

So the Board of Registered Nursing approves schools and also individual practitioners, nurses. And this Bill seeks to go further and actually potentially approve people within the schools.

And with a shortage of nurses already, it just seems to me that this is an additional, almost barrier to curing the shortage that we have in the profession to the first place.

I think, so this is for nurse faculty to approve nurse faculty. Right. And one of the challenges is that we need nurse faculty teaching in more places. Right. More opportunities for nurses to take those courses.

And so one of the barriers has been, because each educational institution has to apply for that faculty, then that faculty is tied just to that educational institution. So if I'm a nurse faculty and I get approved by, you know, institution A, I can't go teach at institution B unless they also apply for me.

So it's actually removing red tape and allowing for me as the nurse faculty to apply directly to the BRN, and I can teach at institution A and B and C and D. I can teach it, all of them with just one application to the BRN.

So it's actually, I think, removing barriers and removing red tape and allowing a lot more freedom for nurse faculty to teach at multiple institutions and removing those burdensome paperwork that all these institutions have to do individually just for one nurse faculty alone. Right.

But it requires that approval process if the BRN chooses to be able to practice at any one of them also.

There's, right, but there's already an approval process for nurse faculty. It already exists. So this is just freeing it up for it to be individually tied to the nurse faculty instead of tied to the institution or that nurse faculty. So it's a process that already exists. It's not a new process.

Currently, schools are able to hire faculty or directors that they believe are qualified. Right.

And they still would get to do that. Currently under, they do go through the approval process for faculty right now.

It's established in our regulations, and the reason we wanted the bill is because it wasn't clear to us, since we're taking it outside of the nursing program, that we had statute authority to create regulations to have this separate process. But the member's correct. There's already an approval process in place.

We just want to be able have authority to write new regulations that would allow it to be an upfront approval, rather than something where the school submits a form to the board, waits for the board's approval, then they get the green light to hire.

It would just, that exact form would be submitted by the applicant themselves and they just have it on their license lookup.

Senator Niello, just really quick at the streamlining bill, and Senator Roth would like to comment on your question.

So currently you're saying a school is not free to hire an individual faculty member or director, irrespective of any review by the BRN

Depending on their accreditation status. There are certain programs, if they have programmatic accreditation, they're not subject to it. But if they don't, we just ensure that they meet the minimum qualifications established in law for faculty under the Nursing Practice Act and the regulations.

And what percentage of nursing schools are not accredited?

Right now it's around 40%. That number tends to kind of go up and down as we have more schools start to come in, but it's around 40 or so percent don't have programmatic accreditation. And so we're trying to look at improving the process for them.

Okay, Senator Roth.

One of my main criticisms, well, not one of my main, one of my criticisms when I went through this process, when I happened to be the chair of this Committee a few years ago, was the cumbersome process of approving faculty school by school by school. And I think this bill is a very good bill.

It addresses that situation. It streamlines the process. I think it addresses every one of my concerns at the time when we were doing sunset review hearings, commend the author for doing, the board for doing the bill, and the board for participating in this.

Look forward to seeing the results of this process, and I will be clearly supporting the bill. And I think I moved it. So thank you.

All right, the bill is moved. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Okay, Senator Eggman, just to weigh in.

Here for a second. Thank you. Senator Archuleta, as a faculty person at a university, it is very difficult to keep nursing faculty. They can make more on the outside. On the outside? I mean, like, if they're institutionalized.

But institution of higher education or a nursing school cannot pay instructor generally what they are competitive at out in the market, and so it is more difficult to keep them. So I can see the need to be able to do a more standardized.

So people are able, if they want to teach, to move into different programs to teach versus just having to do outside work.

All right, so do you want to close?

Respectfully request an ate vote. Thank you so much for the vote. All right, great. You have a motion from Senator Roth.

All right, great. You have a motion from Senator Roth. We'll call the roll.

Motion is do passed as amended to Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's nine yeses and one no. We'll still leave it on call. We have a few Members we're waiting. Thank you, Assemblywoman. And we have just one last author. So for Senators that are members of the business, professions and economic development. We're on our last author. He has two bills. Assemblymen, you ready?

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, if we might be able to begin with Assembly 2148. Yes, that's a bill on fiduciary, on our professional fiduciaries, which helps to strengthen our professional fiduciaries bureau by helping to ensure licensure. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote when you have the opportunity with me today to present support is Mister Jerry Desmond.

Great. Thanks for joining us. You have a couple of minutes there.

Chair Members Jerry Desmond with the Professional Fiduciary Association of California supporting this measure as closing a loophole that exists in current law when an entity is appointed as a guardian or conservator or a personal representative to make sure that those are captured by the statutes.

And we realize, as mentioned in the analysis, that the current fiduciary bureau is under fiscal challenges and recently increased our licensure fees significantly.

But we understand, I think it's in Section 6544 of the current version of the bill, that there would need to be fees to address whatever ends up being the responsibility of the bureau for this population and without we here for any questions and urge aye vote on the bill.

Great. Thank you very much. Is there anybody in opposition to AB 2148 in the room? How about anyone in favor who'd like to do me too testimony or opposition that would like to do me too testimony? That's it then. We'll come back to the dais. Any comments from my colleagues? Senator Niello?

Surprise, surprise.

I'm surprised.

I can see the benefit of the bill. I'll say. But I'm wondering, is there something. Oh, by the way, I really liked your Facebook post regarding your father. Brought back memories myself, which I indicated in a comment has nothing to do with the bill, but did something happen?

Was there a circumstance that created the perceived need for this as opposed to the way the practice been in the past?

Yes. Yes, Senator, there are, without naming what jurisdictions and which individuals, we do have documentation that there are situations where a court has appointed an entity without naming the specific individuals in that entity who would be acting as fiduciary, as conservators or guardians.

And we're hoping to get ahead of that and make sure that there's accountability and requirements for oversight and responsibility with the entities by closing the loophole. So we hope that we're before there being an LA Times kind of articles in the press or some problem that's arisen because of that. So we hope we're ahead of the curve.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there a motion for this bill? All right. Moved by Senator Eggman. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I respect the yes for our aye vote.

Great. We will call the roll. Thank you very much.

Motion is do pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

So that has eight votes. We'll put it on call and hold on to it for some of our other colleagues. Thank you so much to your witness for being here Assemblymember Low. Would you like to move on to AB 3119?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues. AB 3119. It's a critical step to helping improve life, the assistance of our healthcare professionals in addressing the issue of long Covid. With me today is a dear constituent, Susanna Zaraysky, who would also like to share her story and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay, you have two minutes.

Good morning. First, I want to ask all of you, raise your hand if you remember how hard it was to buy toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and Clorox wipes at the beginning of the pandemic. Okay, no one's raising their hands, but you're laughing, so I think you all remember.

Well, here we are four years later, and it's even harder to find doctors or other medical professionals who treat long Covid symptoms than it was to get Clorox wipes back four years ago. I propose this bill to my Assembly Member, Evan Low, because many medical professionals lack the expertise to treat their patients who have long Covid.

And long Covid is a set of more than 200 symptoms, such as brain fog, chronic fatigue, loss of smell and taste, muscle problems, respiratory issues, and other issues that people suffer after their COVID infection. After my mild Covid case a year ago that lasted about two days, I returned to work, but I couldn't focus.

In meetings, I struggled to speak, and I could barely order a coffee. I had forgotten basic words. Sometimes I sounded like Tarzan when I was trying to speak. I had to go on disability leave. My General practitioner referred me to the Stanford Long Covid clinic, but I was told to wait five months for an appointment. Five months.

I was desperate, and I refused to wait that long to see a Doctor. I was sleeping 10 to 11 hours a day, and I struggled to get out of bed in the morning, I used most of my energy to search throughout the state for medical help. There was no doctor in the Bay Area who would see me.

I had to fight to get a telehealth appointment here in Sacramento with the UC Davis Long Covid clinic. There was one clinic in Los Angeles that required an in person visit, which would have required an eight hour drive for me, which is impossible for people who have chronic fatigue. There's a significant economic impact with this scarcity.

Long wait times for appointments mean that people have to stay on disability for a long time, and some people lose their jobs. And this could potentially bankrupt the state's Disability and Unemployment Insurance systems and worsen the budget deficit that already exists.

Over 400 million people around the world have long Covid, just like me, and many are suffering in silence at home. Nearly a fifth of COVID patients are at risk of developing long Covid. And women are twice as likely as men to get this disease.

I urge you to vote yes, because all of you have constituents suffering just like me. Or even worse, with every COVID wave that we have, more people are going to need long Covid care. And without this bill, we won't have enough nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and doctors trained to treat long Covid. Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your story with us, and thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone in the room in opposition that would consider themselves lead opposition to 3119, seeing no one.

Is there anyone here in support of AB 3119 that would like to do me too testimony or folks who are opposed to AB 3119 who'd like to do me too testimony? Seeing no one. We'll come back to the dais. Any questions from my colleagues? All right, the bill has been moved by Senator Eggman.

Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to thank Susanna for helping to join in democracy in action. This bill is the formation of, actually, a pancake breakfast in which we hosted a town hall and we solicited opportunities for legislative proposals. And it was very compelling and a personal experience.

And I want to thank her and acknowledge for the active citizenry and joining us here in the state capitol. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

It's a good Assembly Member that listens to his constituents so much that you find yourself here in a hearing room. Right. Very good. You have a motion from Senator Eggman, and we will call the roll.

Motion is do pass the Senate Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that has nine votes and no nos. But we will leave it on call anyway because we have a couple of colleagues. Thank you, Assemblyman. And thank you for traveling to Sacramento to speak with us. Yes, more than happy to. Okay.

Those of you in the room who have already voted, you are free to go if you voted on all items. Otherwise, we are going to ask folks who are on Senate BP. BP to come on down and we are going to open the roll and hear a few of these items.

Lets go ahead and open the roll on. This is item 12 and 8. This is the consent again. It has seven aye votes and no nos. You want to call the roll for those in the room?

[Roll Call]

Alright, that one has 11 votes. Keep it open. I think we'll keep that one open still. Alright, and then we'll move on to file item three. This is Alanis prescription drug labels. He has seven aye votes. No no's chair voting aye Vice Chair wasn't here yet.

[Roll Call]

All right, that's also 11. We'll leave it on call. Yes, certainly will. We're going to take the two Low bills out of order file item six, AB 2148 Low on professional fiduciaries. It has eight aye votes and no no votes. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that one has 10 aye votes and no no's. We'll leave it on call. One more here. Out of order file item seven. Also assemblymember Low AB 3119. This is physicians and surgeons sitting at nine ayes and no nos.

[Roll Call]

All right, that has 11 votes. We will go back to our file roll here. Order file item four. This is assemblymember Bonta, but it was presented by assemblymember Schiavo. AB 1991. Has nine aye votes and no nos. Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting aye.

[Roll Call]

That's 11 ayes, no no's. We'll leave it on call. Go to Schiavo's bill that she presented for herself AB 2015. This is for nursing school programs and faculty Members. It has nine aye votes and one no vote. Chair voting aye, Vice Chair, voting no.

[Roll Call]

All right, that one sits at 10 aye's and one no. We'll leave it on call. We've done the Low bills, so we'll go to Reyes, which is file item nine, AB 2262. This is her small business bill. It sits at nine ayes and no no's.

Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

That's 11 ayes and no no's. We'll leave it on call. Thank you to my colleagues who are here. And we'll give. I think we have at least one Member out standing on their way down, so we'll hold the roll for that. Okay, we have our last Senator here. Let's lift the call. Go through one more time here.

We're going to start with consent, which is file items 1, 2 and 8.

[Roll Call]

All right. File item three. Alanis, AB 1902. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. The consent calendars are out. The items are all out. And we will move on to file item three, which is Alanis, 1902. [Roll Call]. All right, that one is at 12. Also out file item four. Assemblymember Bontes, AB 1991.

[Roll Call]

12. That item is out. File item five, AB 2015, by Schiavo.

Carve outs 10 to one. [Roll Call]

That's 11 ayes, one no, that is out. File item six, by assemblymember Low.

Current votes 10 to zero. [Roll Call]

11 to zero. That item is out. File item seven. Also by Assemblymember Low, AB 3119.

[Roll Call]

12 ayes, no nos. That item is out. File item nine by Assemblywoman Reyes.

[Roll Call]

All right. 12 eyes, no nos. That item is out. That's it for the Senate. Business, professions and economic development. All right, I gotta run to.