Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everybody. We will get started as soon as we get a Republican to the hearing room. I believe one is on the way, but just to give everyone a heads up as to what's going on, we're just waiting for a Republican to show up to the Committee hearing. Good morning.

Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee hearing. Today we will be hearing 13 bills on our agenda with no bills proposed for consent. Please note that final item number four, AB762 Irwin, has been pulled from today's agenda by the author.

Before we begin today's agenda, I would like to once again remind everyone that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. We apply these rules consistently to all people who participate in our proceedings, regardless of the viewpoint they express.

In order to facilitate the goal of hearing as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

For each measure being presented today, we will be allowing primary witnesses here in the room to speak for up to two minutes each, with up to two primary witnesses per side. Any additional witnesses will be limited to name position on the Bill and the organization they represent, if any.

For those wishing to provide further comments, we are accepting written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. With that, we will begin today's hearing. And I believe we have Majority Leader Aguiar Curry who has agenda item number one, AB260. We're ready whenever you are.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your Committee staff work on this bill. AB 260 is an important proposal to protect safe and legal reproductive health care here in California. Access to reproductive health care, including abortion, continues to be under threat across the country.

Since the Dobbs decision, other states have been restricting or banning abortion care and people's ability to make decisions over their own bodies. And in recent weeks, the federal government officials have publicly announced that their intentions to reevaluate the approval of safe abortion medications.

They've already made cuts to critical funding for family planning in an effort to further restrict the ability of states to provide essential health care. So AB 260 is in response to these very real threats. It protects access to medication abortion here in California, specifically mifepristone, a common and safe medication abortion drug first approved by the FDA in 2000.

Medication abortion is safe and effective. It's the least invasive option for abortion care based on decades of FDA research.

Access to the full scope of reproductive health care is critical for Californians and their health care providers so they can make decisions that are best for their health and the health of their families.

This is especially true for people living in areas with few providers or those who have to travel long distance to get care. This bill also provides critical protections in California for medical professionals helping their patients to get health care they need.

Specifically, this bill protects health care providers, pharmacies, clinics and hospitals from disciplinary actions or licensing impacts that are legally providing mifepristone. Following the passing of a similar policy in New York. This bill also allows reproductive health care providers names to be removed from medication abortions' prescription labels.

Health plans will be required to continue covering medication abortion, making sure this essential care remains affordable for those who need it. This bill also expands the access to telehealth services medicine making sure more people, especially our folks in rural and underserved areas, have access to safe and reliable remote health care.

Members, the federal government has already shown us it intends to roll back access and funding of reproductive health care. It's already happening. It's more important than ever that we stand strong in protecting the rights of Californians and their health care providers. And AB 260 helps do that. It protects patients providers facilities while expanding access through telehealth.

It reinforces California's constitutional right to make their own care choices free from political or religious agendas. This is a proactive step to make sure our people can keep accessing reproductive care regardless of the changes in the federal law.

Affirming access to reproductive health care not only secures a person's right over their own body, but it fosters the health and well being of our communities across the state. With me today to testify in support are Angela Pontes with Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California and Dr. Michelle Gomez, a provider and professional at UCSF Medicine. Thank you.

Good morning. Angela Pontes on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California representing the seven Planned Parenthood affiliates across the state, serving patients from every county through 115 community health centers here today in strong support and as a co-sponsor of AB 260. Restricting access to medication abortion and specifically mifepristone is a priority for the anti-abortion movement and the federal government.

Though medication abortion has been used by millions of people for a quarter of a century and decades of research shows that it is safe and effective, attacks on access and the providers who offer this care persist.

Through proactive policy, AB 260 safeguards existing access to medication abortion in California by protecting against federal interference with the current practice of medicine in this state, ensuring that abortion providers will not risk their licenses for offering safe legal care.

Further, by removing providers names from mifepristone prescription labels, this bill takes additional steps to make sure that providers can continue to safely offer abortion care for all those who need it. Any federal efforts to restrict medication abortion are not only dangerous and cruel, but also a direct attack on our state's constitutional right to reproductive freedom.

Thank you for your consideration of this important policy. We ask for your aye vote.

Good morning Chair Berman and Members. My name is Dr. Michelle Gomez and I'm a family medicine physician and assistant clinical professor with the UCSF School of Medicine. I've been providing and teaching both primary care and abortion care for over 20 years.

I'm grateful for all that California has done to protect the right to abortion, including enshrining this right into our Constitution and protecting clinicians who provide this life-saving care to people from other states under our shield laws. But we can do more, and AB 260 will help.

AB 260 will allow even more Californians with Medi-Cal to access medication abortion via telehealth, which studies have shown to be as safe and effective as in-person care.

I have provided medication abortion via telehealth since the pandemic and have seen firsthand how important this has been, especially for people who live far from clinicians who provide abortions in person, for those who can't leave their jobs or can't find childcare, and for people who have limited mobility due to lack of transportation or a disability.

AB 260 would also protect shield law providers by removing their name from the prescription bottles. My colleague and friend in New York, Dr. Maggie Carpenter, has two lawsuits against her from Texas and Louisiana because someone found medication bottles with her name on them and sought to interfere with the patient's right to an abortion.

It's only a matter of time until one of the California shield law providers has a lawsuit brought against them for the same reason. The Guttmacher Institute estimates that 34,500 medication abortions were provided via shield laws during just the first half of 2024.

And although we don't know exactly how many of those were provided by clinicians in California, that's a lot of pill bottles with clinicians names on them. Our friends in New York State recently passed a law to remove the clinician's name from prescription bottles and California should do the same.

I hope that California will continue to be a brave leader in this true public health crisis. And I strongly urge a favorable vote on AB 260. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of AB 260. Please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Yes. Susan Bonilla with the California Pharmacists Association, in support.

Ryan Spencer with the American College of OB/GYN's District 9. We are co-sponsors of the measure, in support.

Anthony Molina on behalf of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine as a co-sponsor, in support. Thank you.

George Soares of the California Medical Association, in support.

Keshav Kumar with the Reproductive Freedom for All, in strong support and as a co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Connie Chan on behalf of California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you.

Tiffany Brokaw here on behalf of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, proud co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Good morning. Genesis Gonzalez on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Chair, Members. Austin Webster with W Strategies on behalf of the California Nurse Midwives Association, in strong support.

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, in support.

Thank you.

Ryan Souza on behalf of Essential Access Health, proud co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Lisa Matsubara on behalf of Access Reproductive Justice, co-sponsor and in strong support.

Thank you.

Caitlyn Aedo, student pharmacist at University of the Pacific in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Ellen Sergios, student pharmacist at University of the Pacific, in support.

Thank you. Round two.

Sorry. Ryan Spencer on behalf of Teach who was unable to make it in support of the measure as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You have two minutes.

Testing. Great. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council urging a strong no vote on AB 260. This bill recklessly removes critical safeguards from the dispensing of abortion pills like mifepristone, prioritizing ideological activism over women's health and safety. A new groundbreaking study from the Ethics and Public Policy yesterday was released.

It's the largest ever analysis of abortion pills outcome based on the analysis of data from an all payer insurance claims database that includes 866,000 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023. Here's what revealed.

Over 10% of women who take mifepristone suffer serious life threatening complications such as septus, hemorrhaging, infections or other serious adverse events just 45 days after the procedure. That's 22 times higher than the so-called safe and effective figure advertised for these drugs with these limited clinical trials that are being used.

Shockingly, California wants to expand access to this dangerous drug while even removing the name of prescribing doctors from the pills. Women deserve transparency and not secrecy. They deserve safety and not silence. So why are real world outcomes so much worse?

It's because the FDA, under political pressure, has stripped away nearly all original safety protocols, protocols that were designed to protect women. Originally, the FDA required that mifepristone only be dispensed in person by a certified physician after an in-person examination to rule out dangerous conditions like ectopic pregnancy and to confirm the baby's gestational age.

Please wrap up. Thank you.

All right. Without basic protections, women are left to manage the physical trauma of abortion, including hemorrhaging, infections and incomplete abortion alone, often miles away from emergency medical care.

Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right.

Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank the author for this work. I think this is so critically important as it relates to the protections that people need to get access to reproductive health care. And also, you know, we are seeing a rise of criminalization of fundamental health care.

And this is the second time this morning this study has been cited. And I think it's important that someone states for the record that these medications are absolutely safe and effective. And our institutions across California have done the research to ensure we are protecting the patients, to give them the safest and most effective care.

And so it is an honor to support this bill. And I hope you'll add me as a co-author, if you wouldn't mind. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Any-- Don't have a quorum yet. Any additional questions or comments? Seeing no additional questions or comments. Majority Leader, would you like to close?

I'll make it easy. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank you very much for the Committee.

Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet, but we'll move on to motions and seconds when we do. I want to thank the majority leader for authoring this bill now more than ever. It's essential that California reinforce its commitment to safeguarding the right to abortion access. And I'm happy to support the bill when the time comes.

Thank you very much. I see Assemblymember Fong in the audience with agenda item number three, AB 714. Ready when you are.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Assembly Bill 714 removes commercial driving from programs that may be exempted from the Private Post Secondary Education act, which established the Bureau for Private Post secondary education in 2010. The bureau oversees private post secondary education, making sure that these programs meet minimum educational quality standards to prevent harm and fraud to our students.

Some of the programs that are exempt from the Bureau's oversight include those that cost under $2,500. This was meant to exclude programs like test prep programs and courses such as the MCAT or LSAT. Unfortunately, commercial driving programs that charge less than $2,500 were also included in this exemption.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there are 436 heavy truck fatalities in California in 2022. An average of one more than one death per day involving large trucks. Most of us in this room, along with our friends and family, share the road with large trucks each and every day.

We must ensure that commercial driving programs are properly regulated to ensure that drivers are properly trained to operate large trucks safely. Here to testify and support is Steve Gold with the 160 Driving Academy and Matt Broad from the Teamsters. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for having me today. My name is Steve Gold and I own the 160 Driving Academy truck driving schools. I'm here today to discuss AB714. With 154 schools nationwide, the 160 Driving Academy is the largest commercial driving training institution in the country.

In 2024 we trained to place over 27,000 new professional truck drivers across our school system. In 2025, across our 10 California CDL schools, we'll create and place over 3,000 new truck drivers into high paying jobs.

By way of background, I'm the former chief supply chain officer for PepsiCo where I had the responsibility, among other things, for the largest private fleet in the country.

I started the 160 Driving Academy 13 years ago as when I was at PepsiCo, I could not identify high quality truck driver training institutions that met PepsiCo's training and safety standards, especially when we had unsafe drivers that required extensive training. In all cases, poor training was directly correlated to incident and accidents.

At the unpleasant task of reporting this information. CDL training is governed uniquely by each state and by the Federal Department of Transportation. In California, my company is licensed and governed by the Bureau for Private and Post Secondary Education or better known as the BPPE.

Like other institutions licensed by the BPPE the 160 Driving Academy is singularly focused on driver safety and the safety of the General public on our roadways. In 2022, the National Safety Council reported almost 6,000 highway fatalities due to heavy truck incidents across the country.

437,000 of those fatalities were heard in California, the second highest in the nation behind Texas. If you're not aware of the industry standard for CDL training, it's four weeks or 160 hours, which is how my company got its names.

In addition to the bppe, the Federal Government sets minimum training standards for each student, for which training includes, among other things, 31 detailed curriculum requirements. The largest employers, including Amazon, UPS, Dollar General, Swift, Trucking, Waste Management, Pepsi, require all of their employees to receive at least 160 hours of training prior to testing for the commercial driver's license.

Please wrap up. I'm here to speak about significant loophole BPE rules. Let me repeat 40 hour that some schools offer $2,500 and 40 hours of training for this critical need. These schools are taking advantage of the BPP exemption that allows training schools to bypass the BPP license process.

Beyond irresponsible, these schools do not have a comprehensive training curriculum and there's no way they're compliant with federal rules. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair, Members, Matt Brod here on behalf of the Teamsters in strong support of this Bill. You know, in researching about this issue, I checked in with our Teamster apprenticeship program about the program they operate. They think it's insane that you could operate a competent and appropr driving training program for less than $2,500. It's not safe.

And you know, we strongly feel like the road needs to be shared with safe drivers because that's what our Members do and they interact with the general public. So for that reason, we're strongly in support of this Bill and urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support of the Bill?

Morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Chris Shimoto, on behalf of the California Trucking Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. What you were watching is my quorum leaving the. Leaving the hearing in real time. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none. Bringing back to colleagues for questions or comments on the Bill? Seeing none. Assembly Member Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Assembly Bill 714 simply closes a loophole, protects traffic safety and ensures that commercial driving programs are properly regulated by the Bureau for Private Post Secondary Education. I respectfully asked for an aye vote at the proper time.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly Member Fong. When once we get a quorum, we'll get motions in seconds. I'll be happy to support the Bill at that time. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think I see a selling Member Castillo with a jumping the line.

It's like the lottery agenda item number 9 AB 1482.

Thanks. Good to see you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I want to thank the Committee for their work on this bill and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1482, also known as Bowie's Law.

The bill is about bringing more transparency and accountability to our animal shelters and breeders, and ultimately about giving more animals a fair shot at finding a good home. This is a personal for me. I've adopted shelter pets myself and I can say from experience it's life changing.

These animals have brought joy, companionship and comfort to me just like they do for so many others across the state. But not every animal gets that chance. Right now, too many adoptable pets are being euthanized simply because people never knew they were there. Bowie's law helps fix that.

It requires shelters to post available animals online in a visible way so that the public can see who's out there and who's waiting for a home. This is a simple, low cost solution that can make a big difference in helping families connect with animals in need.

The bill also asks the state to take a serious data driven look at overcrowding in our shelters so we can find real long term solutions without guesswork. And it ensures that breeders follow some basic standards like microchipping and vet checks to protect both animals and new owners.

At its core, this bill is about doing by doing right by the animals in our care. They don't have a voice in this process. We are their voice and I believe we have a responsibility to treat them with dignity, to give them a fair chance and to make it easier for families to open their hearts and homes.

With me today to provide testimony is Nick Sackett, Director of Legislative affairs for Social Compassion and Legislation.

Hello Chair Members. I'm Nick Sackett, Director at Social Compassion and Legislation. Proud co-sponsor of the Bill, AB 1482 takes three modest steps to help help tackle the pet overpopulation crisis. First, the bill requires animal shelters to publicly post the availability of adoptable animals on their website or a third party website.

By ensuring that all animal shelters are posting their adoptable animals online, we can ensure that those looking to add a pet to their family are able to see the many wonderful pets available without having to necessarily travel to the shelter first. Additionally, posting online helps animal rescues know who's available and where their help is needed. Most.

Secondly, the bill reduces the threshold of sold dogs to be considered a breeder for the purposes of state regulation, as well as requiring all breeders to microchip and inoculate the dogs they sell.

According to the American Humane Society, each year, approximately 10 million pets are lost in the United States and more than 6 million animals wind up in the nation's shelters. A significant source of the problem is animal identification and the ability to reunite these animals with their families.

Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats in shelters without identification are reunited with their owners. Ultimately, this leads to millions of taxpayer dollars needlessly spent on sheltering and euthanizing pets.

Ensuring that breeders are also properly inoculating the dog they sell will cut down on these new pet owners from incurring expensive veterinary bills early in the animal's life, which can lead to the owner to surrender the animal to a shelter.

Lastly, to fully grasp the extent of the resources and policies required to solve the pet overpopulation crisis, a full study of the problem by the Department is crucial to help guide both policymakers and stakeholders. Thank you for your time and consideration. With that, I respectfully ask for. I vote.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill?

Mr. Chair and Members, Monica Miller on behalf of Fix Our Shelters and Lucky Pup in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. April Robinson with A Voice for Choice Advocacy. And we're working with the author on some amendments and hope to future support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Just want to add on. Still seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. See. Seeing no Colleagues to my right. Bringing it to my left. Any. Any. No. There's no history with this bill.

Someone Castillo, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I just want us to be the voice for the animals that don't have a voice and help them in this situation. So I respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Castillo, for, for picking this effort up. You're the. The third Member, only the second author, but the third Member to. To present the bill in this Committee. It's complicated, but with the amendments, I'm happy to support the bill today. I apologize to my staff for not saying the pun. That's in my talking points.

I got in trouble last time. So with that, that's it. We'll have a motion second when we get a quorum, which we're getting further away from. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody on BNP who wants to come to the BNP Committee hearing to help me establish a quorum? We are five Members away. I am not optimistic.

Any authors of bills that want to come to the BNP Committee hearing? I got bills. I got four. Is there anybody Else on the Committee who's got bills. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Got that. All right, let's get at it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're going to start with AB 1501. Ready when you are.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I am happy to present AB 1501.

Hi. Good to see you. Good morning.

Thanks for being here. The first of four sunset bills. This is the bill for the Podiatric Medical Board of California and the Physician Assistant Board. First, I would like to accept the Committee amendments.

With the amendments, this bill would extend both boards by four years, prevent podiatrists from being classified as ancillary providers under health plans, to address billing disparities, address license renewal fees in response to budget issues raised by the boards, and make other technical changes.

Here with me for technical questions, our representatives from each board, I have Rosanna Khan, Executive Officer of the Physician Assistant Board, and Kathy Cooper, Administration Analyst for the Podiatric Medical Board. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. First witness, two minutes. Have anything to add?

Good morning. My name is Rosanna. Good morning, Chairman Berman and Members of the Committee. My name is Rosanna Khan. I serve as the Executive Officer of the Physician Assistant Board.

While the board has not taken a formal position on AB 1501, as it does not currently include any substantive changes to the PA Practice act, the Board fully supports the extension of its sunset date by another four years.

The Board appreciates the Committee's careful review during the sunset process and looks forward to working collaboratively with Committee staff to incorporate the Board's proposed legislative changes, including adjustments to the Board's fee structure to ensure long term physical stability and continued public protection. Thank you for your time and the opportunity to appear before you today.

Thank you very much. Next Witness, Please.

Good morning.

Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Kathy Cooper and I'm here in lieu of Brian Naslin, our Executive Officer. He couldn't be here today, but he asked me to communicate that we are in strong support of having our sunset date extended for the next four to five years.

That we would like to have the protection of the title Podiatric Surgeon added to BPC 2474. We would like to have 2488amended to include the withdrawal of the 10 year requirement that they take part three. We found that that's not needed and all the other requirements are there. So it's all laid out in our sunset papers.

But we would also like to have recognition of not considering dpms ancillary to physicians and surgeons and that's laid out in our papers that you've already got.

And the last thing is we feel that we've supported the need for a fee increase and we've been dealing with this for about two years and we were advised to deal with it in the sunset, which we are. And I'm here to answer any questions on that.

But.

But that is what we would like to come out of the hearing.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 1501? Come on up. Name an organization.

Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association. We aren't in support yet. We actually are support if amended. We absolutely appreciate the amendments in the policy area, particularly that with ancillary providers and we support all aspects of the policy changes. Where we do have concerns, as the chair knows, is with the 48% fee increase.

We do not want the board to go insolvent, but we do hope we continue to have discussions with the chair, Members of the Committee to find a way to maybe maintain the solvency of the of the board, but also potentially a lower fee increase to allow that to concur. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Name an organization, please.

Morning.

Jeremy Mies, President of California Academy of PAs, want to thank the Chairman, Members and staff for the ongoing conversations that we're having regarding physician assistance and just can't really overstate the need that's out there right now and just want to reiterate that the provisions that CAP is advocating for would produce immediate and cost neutral changes that would impact access to care for millions of Americans.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sonny Klein. I'm the President Elect for CAPA as well. Thank you again for the staff here and the Committee Members that are working very hard. This is not an easy thing and I just want to say we're going to stay in the conversation long term.

We're here long term and we are committed to getting access to care to all the districts in California because we know that this is potentially a crisis that is brewing and getting worse. And so we are here and I want to offer myself always to give any kind of support or answer questions that you need.

Thank you so much for what you do.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1501 seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Questions from the Committee Members seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

First, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the law extern of the BMP Committee, Alex Dealers on this Bill. Thank you, Alex, for all the work you've been doing for the Committee and. And on this Bill. And when the time comes, I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And moving on to file item 11, maybe AB 1502.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm happy to present AB 1502, the Sunset Bill for the California Veterinary Medical Board.

Beyond extending the board sunset date, this Bill updates board Member composition to reflect the growing veterinary profession, simplifies and consolidates laws regulating continuing education, and grants the board authority to begin discussion with stakeholders about adjusting fees in response to the CVMB's Fund condition. Please don't ask. Well, I take that back.

CVMB being the acronym for the California Veterinary Medical Board. Committee amendments are technical and clarifying in nature. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I was so gonna ask. First witness, please. Two Minutes

I'm here if you need help. Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Jessica Sieferman. I'm the Executive officer of the California Veterinary Medical Board CVMP. My board strongly supports AB 1502 and we'd like to thank the Committee and staff for their hard work and collaboration on this Bill.

AB 1502 provides necessary changes to the act that if enacted, will improve processes for applicants, licensees, consumers and overall board operations.

This Bill, among other things, will significantly enhance consumer protection by providing stronger disincentives for unlicensed practice, requiring veterinarians provide copies of animal patient records to their clients upon request, and allowing the board to enter into stipulated settlements with licensees without first transmitting cases to the Attorney General's Office.

The latter change alone is estimated to decrease disciplinary cycle times by at least a year and has the potential to save the board over $700,000 annually. Thank you for your work on this Bill to date. We look forward to our continued collaboration as we strive to continuously improve how we fulfill our consumer protection mandate. And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of 1502? Name and organization, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. Christina DiCaro, representing the California Veterinary Medical Association. We are in strong support of the continuation of the Veterinary Medical Board.

And we're particularly in support of the amendments that add another registered veterinary technician to the board and specify that one of the veterinarian Members should be a large animal or equine focused veterinarian. Just. Just want to thank the chair, Mr. Franco, for working with us over the course of the last few months. Very appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of 1502? Seeing none. Any opposition, Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close? Thank you very much. Moving on to AB 1503. Ready when you are.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. AB 1503 is the Sunset Bill for the California State Board of Pharmacy. This bill contains numerous provisions stemming from the Board's sunset review oversight process, including many provisions specifically recommended by the Board.

In addition to extending the Board Sunset date by 4 years, this bill includes language transitioning the practice of pharmacy to a, quote, standard of care model, allowing the pharmacist in charge to authorize additional pharmacy technicians to work in a pharmacy, and other provisions intended to expand access to care throughout or through pharmacist practice.

With me today in support of the bill are Sang Zero, President of the Board of Pharmacy, and Susan Bonilla, Chief Executive Officer of the California Pharmacists Association. Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes, please.

Thank you. Good morning, Chairperson Berman, Vice Chair Flora. Members of the Committee, my name is Sang Zero and I have the privilege of serving as the Board of Pharmacies President and have the honor of being a Member of the Board for the Past five Years.

I'm proud of the Board's continued steadfast commitment to consumer protection, our role as a leader in many of our nation's pharmacy regulations, regulation, standards. I'll keep my opening brief.

The Board sincerely appreciates the Committee's thoughtful consideration of the policy issues raised by the Board as part of its legislative report and the thoughtful questions raised by the Committee during the oversight hearing last month.

AB 1503 includes several of the policy changes the Board is seeking to reflect the significant opportunities we identified to improve consumer protection and the Board's ability to meet its mandate, while attempting to ensure millions of Californians has ready access to high quality pharmaceutical care by highly skilled, knowledgeable pharmacists.

The Board the last four years held countless stakeholder meetings, held thoughtful discussions, and listened to various stakeholders in crafting these policy issues.

These policy changes ensure consistency in the application of the law, address challenges the Board has experienced in conducting investigations and and remove barriers to patient care through the streamlining of the pharmacist practice model and the transition to a more robust standard of care model, just to name a few.

The Board is pleased to support AB 1503 and looks forward to continuing to partner with the Legislature and the Administration to achieve the Board's vision. Healthy Californians through quality pharmacist care. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes please.

Susan Bonilla, CEO of the California Pharmacists Association. In support of 1503, I want to recognize the Board of Pharmacy for their dedicated dedication to serving the mandate of patient protection by advancing necessary reforms to the regulatory structure of pharmacists. I firmly believe that pharmacists hold the key to achieving more affordable health care.

Providing preventative care and early interventions to improve patient outcomes and AB 1503 will improve and increase access for patients. Unfortunately, due to opposition Back in 2013, when this same Committee recognized pharmacists as healthcare providers with AB493, we left a highly prescriptive regulatory structure in place.

This was to the detriment of patient care and it reduced the ability of pharmacists to practice within their scope and training and expertise.

We want to thank the Chair and the Committee for Beginning this Correction Back in 2021 at the last sunset review hearing and directing the Board of Pharmacy to study a realignment to a standard of care.

Today we're considering the results of this report and you can correct the deficiencies of the incremental work we in 2013 by passing AB 1503 with full confidence that the this will improve care for patients. And that is what is first and foremost in the intention of this bill.

It's important to understand that all health care providers except for pharmacists are regulated according to a standard of care. Physicians have a standard of care, nurses, nurse practitioners, dentists, and the list goes on.

This means that instead of a highly prescriptive 887 pages that currently regulates pharmacist, we would move to a standard of care similar to all other health care providers. Standard of care directs that you practice according to the standards of training, practice setting and expertise.

The guardrail that applies to all health providers, including physicians, is this would be the same for pharmacists. If you do not practice to the standard of care, you risk disciplinary action and potentially the loss of your license. Finally, AB 1503 does not propose a transition to an unregulated standard of care model.

I urge you not to let scope, protectionism, alarmist mischaracterization or inaccuracies of the opposition continue to restrict pharmacists from exercising their training and judgment in the care of patients.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support? Name and organization please.

Good morning Chair Members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Cedars Sinai Medical Center in support. Thank you to the Committee for their work on this. Appreciate it.

Caitlin Acedo, Intern Pharmacist at University of the Pacific in support.

Ellen Sergisian, Intern Pharmacist at University of the Pacific in support.

Good morning Committee. Good morning Committee. Rhiannon Morales, legislative aide with UFCW Western States Council. We would like to thank the Committee for and the Committee staff for the thorough and thoughtful work that's gone behind shaping AB 1503. We just would like to make two key points this morning.

We believe that the quality of care regulations should first be in full force and effectively.

I'm sorry, name and organization.

Thank you. Here in support.

Thank you very much.

With Weideman Group on behalf of the California Society of Health System Pharmacists in support. I also want to thank the Committee consultant for his work on this.

Ryan Elaine, on behalf of the California Retailers Association. Bit of a tweener. Stuff we like stuff we don't like. But just want to speak in support of the farm to tech ratio. Thank you.

Thank you. Peter Kellison on behalf of Walgreens. Want to express appreciation for the pharmacy technician ratio increase. Reserve the right to work on other issues. Looking forward to working with the author and the Committee.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 1503. Come on up.

Good morning Chair and Members. Pat Whalen here on behalf of United Nurses Association of California, UNAC UHCP. We are. I want to thank the staff for the conversations but we do remain opposed to the ratios that were just mentioned. Current law is often characterized as saying it's a one to one ratio, one pharm tech to one pharmacist.

Well, what's often forgotten in that discussion is that the very next line of the statute says that if you add one more pharmacist you can add two technicians. So it's really three to two. This bill would change the ratio dramatically to four pharmacy technicians to one pharmacist. That's very concerning. As the Committee knows in the sunset report.

The there was a survey done of thousands of pharmacists around the state about what they thought the proper ratio should be and it was 2 to 1 was the most common response. And yet in this bill there's a radical increase to 4 to 1.

Not only is that against the will of most of the pharmacist survey respondents, but it also creates practical problems. The pharmacists are charged with any number of tasks with their advanced practice and all of the additional things they do in their scope.

Now this bill seems to be a gift to chain drugstores to just push more pills out the door rather than increasing the number of pharmacists and giving the pharmacists the opportunity to give patients what they really need, which is consultation and education with the pharmacist pushing pills out the door is not the answer.

That's just where the money is for the chains. Unfortunately. And ironically, this provision of this bill is a poison pill. There's been many standalone bills dealing with ratios before.

By jamming it into this bill with the hope that there's enough momentum with regard to the other provisions of the bill that this can sail through, we must remain in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next one is two minutes please.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is George Soares with the California Medical Association. Respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 1503 by Assemblymember Berman specifically as it relates to the language regarding the standard of care model. This bill does not simply not simply proposing to transition pharmacy practice to a standard of care.

Rather, the Board is proposing to expand the pharmacist scope of practice and apply a standard of care approach to some of the new services pharmacists would be able to provide.

CMA wants to ensure that pharmacists are practicing within their scope and many of the services proposed by the Board in this legislation go beyond the existing education and training requirements of pharmacists. Pharmacists lack access to complete patient records with which prevents them from being able to develop an appropriate plan of care.

This bill includes broad prescriptive authority for pharmacists. Current law precludes persons from authorized to prescribe or write a prescription from owning a pharmacy, effectively banning pharmacists owned pharmacies.

We fear that large retail pharmacies will exploit the broad language a standard of care model employs and pressure their pharmacists to practice in a way which increases their profits rather than prioritizing quality patient care. We also want to note our concerns with the inclusion of therapeutic interchanges.

As noted, pharmacists often lack access to complete patient records that are crucial for any professional to make a safe and appropriate therapeutic decision. For these reasons, we ask that you hold off on supporting this legislation until the standard of care language is removed. I'm happy to answer questions to the next one.

We have about 45 seconds.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members, my name is Fred Noteware, representing PhRMA Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

We've had a couple of good initial conversations with the Chair and the staff about our concern, echoing California Medical Association over the new authority to make therapeutic interchanges or switching drugs prescribed by a physician within the same therapeutic class this is significant concern of ours in part because there's no requirement that the pharmacist inform the physician of the change or even get prior approval to do so.

Many patients go to more than one Doctor and more than one pharmacy and there's a concern about communication and ultimately trying to prevent any risk to patients. So with that we would. We have no objection to the extension of the board, but we do have serious concerns and oppose the part about therapeutic interchange. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness in opposition. Name and organization, please.

Yeah.

Mr. Chair and Members, Monica Miller. On behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association. We had opposed unless amended as a position. However, we have removed that and we are now neutral. We will continue to work with the author and his staff and we really appreciate the work that we've done to date. So thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to AB 1503? Name and organization? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

I look forward to continuing to work with all of the various stakeholders on this very important sunset bill and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And we'll be moving on to absolutely 1504.

I want to start by thanking Assembly Member Berner for letting me quickly do the last sunset Bill before she presents her Bill. AB 1504 is the sunset Bill for the California Massage Therapy Council.

This Bill would extend the sunset date for the existing council by an additional four years while making reforms to address issues raised during the sunset review oversight program process. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes.

Turn your mic on sir.

Perfect thank you, I'm Timothy Peckinpaugh here today representing the AMTA as their government relations Chair for California. We have a support if amended position on AB 1504 and would like to thank the author and his staff for continuing to work with us.

I would like to express my gratitude to the author for defining massage therapy as healthcare in the Bill. The CMTC does commendable work raising awareness and supporting efforts to combat human trafficking. However, I'd like to remind all of us that human trafficking and prostitution are not massage therapy.

Massage therapy is a health care service and deserves to be regulated by a state board, like all other health professions. CMTC's intended mission of patient protection, of elevating the practice with appropriate standards, of supporting students if their school is in danger or has lost its accreditation, simply falls far short.

We agree that there are some meritorious qualities with the current structure, which is why we support building on what works to create a sustainable and efficient licensing board to set a standard of professional practice. It is paramount to do so at this juncture because massage therapy is healthcare.

Countless Californians who seek treatments from qualified massage therapists find relief for a myriad of conditions ranging from chronic pain to the effects of cancer to PTSD. I have a patient who stopped taking his prescription fentanyl because he found an alternative means of managing his chronic pain through massage therapy.

And so now maybe won't end up as just another number in our nation's opioid epidemic. Another one of my patients is a double amputee who reports that she finds that massage therapy not only assuages her physical pain, but that she also finds mental and emotional relief because she's treated with the dignity that she deserves.

It is uncommon for a health care field to be governed exclusively by a voluntary certification system that allows the misuse of the professional title. Massage therapy should be regulated with similar standards and respect as other healthcare fields. We need to elevate the status of our profession. We need to respect its practitioners.

We need licensure for massage therapy in California.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate my friend's testimony. I want to just make it clear for folks that wasn't necessarily testimony in support. That was support, if amended, advocating for something that is not currently in the Bill. So just in case there were questions about that, just wanted to make that distinction clear. Thanks.

I appreciate that because I was going to probably have questions about that myself. Anyone else in support of 1504? Come on up. Name and organization, please.

My name is Travis Fisher. By the standards of the International Massage Association, I'm ranked top 10 in the world for sports massage. I support and I represent health safety and efficacy. And I strongly support licensing in California.

Thank you so much.

Laura Puryear, Director of government relations for the Associated Bodywork and Massage Professionals. I want to thank everyone for their work on this. I look forward to the opportunity to continue to work with sponsors on the proposed sunset date.

But I want to say that we echo everything that has been said by AMTA today and we support the amendments made. And thank you.

Thank you. Name and organization, please.

My name is Lauren Mclaughlin. I'm a certified massage therapist practicing in Roseville. I am in support of 1504, if amended. I support what AMTA and ABMP have said.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning. James Becker, senior Director of Government Relations for AMTA National support with amendments. Thank you.

Good morning. Kayla Gregory, licensed massage therapist. I agree.

Thanks. Perfect.

Good morning. Michael Roberson, President of the California Massage Therapy Association. Support if amended.

Thank you.

Deb Atun. I'm a certified massage therapist and I support.

Thank you.

Daniela Batun, spa owner. I support.

Morning. My name is Tony Psychotis. I'm a certified massage therapist in California. I support if amended. How the PRA requirements are going to be applied to CAMTC is a particular tricky topic. Thank you.

BJ Pitts, ZMT certified. And I support sunsetting or keeping the sunset going.

Perfect. Thank you.

Ben Drillings, President of California Massage School Association. I support sunset CAMTC and give state license for massage therapy. And the time is now.

Thank you.

Stacy De Goyer, massage therapist from Petaluma. I support this Bill with if amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rhonda Cutter. I'm a massage therapist in Marin county and have worked with the City of San Rafael for many years and CAMTC successfully and I'm in strong support of continuation of CAMTC and the Bill if amended. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Kimberly Austin, certified massage therapist in Folsom. I support AB 1504 if amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah. Anyone in opposition to 1504? Ready when you are, sir. Two minutes, my friend.

Mr. Chairman, Terry Mchale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing CAMTC familiar with the sunset process. We could either have been favored with amendments or opposed with amendments. We just believe the Bill needs more work. I'll use my two minutes quickly.

I remember when Jenny Oropeza, fiery Legislator in 2008, decided to create licensure or oversight for massage therapy. She deliberately did not make it a licensure. She believed then, as we believe now, and as the analysis shows, it was more. It was too expensive, it was too onerous. It also cut out the collaboration of local entities.

Ex Senator Richard Roth, who chaired this Committee on the Senate side, asked for a study a couple of years ago what would have happened with licensure. And it was discovered that immediately upon licensure, the two year cost of $300 for certification would go to over $1,000. We also know from this Committee just title protection.

If you look at what you've done with title protection, the cost of title protection is prohibitive. When the radiological assistance with less than 40 people wanted to do title protection, the cost came back in appropriations for over $500,000. It would be ruinous to do licensure. We appreciate that it's not in this legislation.

I do want to touch upon the elephant in the room. There is in this legislation, a limit to how much the Executive officer can make as handling CMTC

I hope it's a typo in the Bill or miscast by the leg counsel, but it ostensibly says that the Executive Officer of CMTC cannot make more than the salary alone of those individuals mentioned in government code 11550, which would be impossible to find someone to be able to work for that.

I would close by saying in terms of you take those individuals who are in 11550 and if you were to offer them a couple of $1.0 million for their retirement and for their health care and for the overall compensation, they would not sell it.

We look forward to working with the Chair and with his very able staff in trying to reach resolution on some of the concerns in the Bill.

Thank you very much. Next one is two minutes please.

Sure. Good morning. My name is Alison Siegel. I am special Counsel to the California Massage Therapy Council. CMTC is looking forward to collaborating with the joint committees on this Bill and I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

CMTC appreciates all of the hard work put into this Bill and is grateful that many of the amendments requested in the sunset review report have been made.

However, there are concerns as some of the amendments that have been proposed have some mechanical issues, particularly the provisions related to adding legislative intent to identify CMTC as a quasi public entity 18 years after the fact, placing PRA requirements on CMTC, government interference with the right of private parties to contract with one another and placing particularly burdensome requirements on volunteer board Members.

CMTC is happy to work with the joint committees on these issues and help refine the language to address some legal impediments and structural impossibilities that the amendments create. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition to 1504? Name and organization, please.

Mr. Chairman, Members Mike Knudsen on behalf of the California Professional Massage Therapy Coalition, very much support the sunset work. Grave concerns about the PRA and we'll continue to work and talk through that. Thank you.

Thank you. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee Members? Seeing none. Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Quick close. I want to assure my friend that there is no typo in the Bill.

The cap under this Bill would be adjusted in step with state employee compensation, but for now the number would be $247,000 a year, which is the same amount the Secretary of the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency makes. Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thanking Assembly Member Boerner for letting me go ahead of her. I'm now going to thank Assembly Member Wicks for letting Assembly Member Boerner go ahead of her. Boerner agenda Item number five, AB 968. Thanks.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. AB 968 covers a pharmacist ability to prescribe non hormonal contraceptive contraception. Currently, the law specifies that a pharmacist may only prescribe hormonal contraceptives. At the time the law was written. Safe non hormonal options were not available. However, now that's changed.

Pharmacists should be able to offer non hormonal prescription options for individuals who cannot. Safely use hormonal contraceptives. Contraception? I should not use that. I should say birth control so I can say that. Such as cancer survivors, those with oral migraines, or individuals managing complex medication regimes, non hormonal options are a necessity, not a preference.

California can and should lead the nation. In eliminating unnecessary barriers to reproductive care. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in support of the Bill?

No. We thought we were on consent.

I would have loved for you to have been on consent, but sadly, here we are. And.

Or happily here we are.

Or happily here we are. Any witnesses in support of the bill who want to add on in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments.

We can't do motions or seconds because we still do not have a quorum for anybody paying attention out there in the world. Dr. Bains?

Yes, I will be supporting this bill today. However, I do want to put out the caveat that making sure people see their doctor and get good advice on STDs as a lot of people have misconceptions of hormonal versus non hormonal and then there's still a misconception of them protecting them from STDs as well.

So I will always voice that people. Go in and see their doctor as soon as they can if they have any questions. Thank you.

I'm a huge advocate for annual gynecological exams.

Thank you. #Metoo. Any additional comments or questions from colleagues? Gotcha. Dr. Bains, any additional. What am I supposed to say? Nothing probably would have been the right answer. Any additional witness or questions? Comments from colleagues? Seeing none. As some Member Boerner helped put me out of my misery.

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you Assembly Member Boerner, for this very important bill. I am happy to support it today. We'll have motions and seconds when the time comes. Appreciate it. Assemblymember Wicks. Help me help myself with agenda item number two. AB 671 about building plans, not gynecological exams.

It's a wild time at BMP today. It's that time of year. Sorry to disappoint on my really boring subject matter here, but this is a really important bill. We have to help our restaurants. Good morning Mr. Chair Members. Today I'm proud to be presenting AB 671 which streamlines restaurant openings to help our local businesses.

Last week it passed out of local Gov Local Government Committee with unanimous bipartisan support California restaurants are the heart of our local economies and communities. They are spaces for exchange of culture and connection. They are often small mom and pops establishments.

They are where we grab our morning coffee, catch up with friends over lunch and even take meetings. The restaurant industry provides critical first jobs and it creates pathways to business ownership for immigrant entrepreneurs and historically underserved communities. But right now it is simply too hard to get these restaurants up and running.

In California, restaurant owners are forced to pay a dead rent on unopened restaurants even as they navigate complicated permitting processes. Processes that for small business owners can create difficult, even insurmountable hurdles to opening restaurants. All the while, communities can't access these important venues for food and connection.

AB 671 responsibly reduces barriers to opening new restaurants in California by fast tracking front end plan review. It authorizes qualified professional architects and engineers to self certify plans for restaurant projects that convert an existing facility to a new use.

These restaurant retrofits are often completed by small restaurants and this new permitting pathway means that these businesses won't have to wait as long to start generating a profit from their restaurants. Under this framework, randomized audits ensure compliance with health and safety codes. And the approach does not exempt restaurants from mandatory construction inspections.

So AB671 creates a process to facilitate timely restaurant openings while maintaining public safety standards. Major American cities like New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago have already seen success with similar streamlined permitting programs. They be 671. We have the opportunity to do the same in our state.

We can lessen the burden on many small restaurants by allowing these businesses to open faster. And with me here to testify is Silvio Ferrari, representing the Hard Scale Eats Restaurant Group and Matthew Sutton, Senior Vice President of government affairs and public policy at the California restaurant Association.

Great. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf of a group of restaurants under the hard scale eats brand. This Legislature is certainly very, very familiar with the difficulties that come with permitting.

So often in this Legislature, we are talking about the difficulty of permitting in the housing sector, the fact that it is cumbersome, it is lengthy, it is costly, and it brings a whole host of uncertainty with it. Well, the restaurant industry equally shares those difficulties.

And at the end of the day, we need to be thoughtful in how we get so many small businesses up and running quicker. And this is one great opportunity to do that. In today's environment, we continue to see restaurants going out of business and closing their doors at really an alarming rate.

And many restaurants that just want to be able to come in and do improvements, but find the cost and time and delay and uncertainty something that prevents them from doing that. And you all know that the more cooks there are in the kitchen and the permitting, the more difficult it can be.

So we think working with the Last Committee in local government, we really struck a balance on preserving, as the author said, making sure that there is upfront plan review in a limited and streamlined way and not touching any of the back end inspections. So everything that occurs out there today will continue to incur.

So we think this is well balanced and very, very helpful to get things moving. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. Very excited to be here in support of AB671. The vast majority of our Members are those neighborhood restaurants throughout your districts, in your communities that provide the fabric of culture and community.

This Bill represents the taking down of a number of bureaucratic and economic barriers to permitting. So we're very excited about it. There's nowhere in the state right now that the restaurant community is not on very precarious landscape. Things continue to be incredibly challenged.

And so while there are current pain points that we need to address in terms of the restaurant affordability crisis, what I love about this bill is. This bill helps position the restaurant community for growth.

And often we are one of the first calls from cities by mayors and others to help restore the community and, well, not the community, but to restore the heart of downtown Coors. So this helps urbanize the non urbanized districts and areas and we're very excited about it.

And again, it takes down economic, bureaucratic and access barriers to permitting for restaurants. And we're very excited to support this. Thank you. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses in support of the bill, please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Amelia Zamani with the California Travel Association in support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Norland Asperich, with Axiom Advisors. Registering support from the following restaurants and organizations. Uvo, Sushi Nozawa, Matu, John and Vinny's, Hiho, California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce and Steadfast LA. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Anyone who wants to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments. Seeing none. Assembly Member Wicks, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote

Aye. It's my favorite close. Thank you. Assembly Member Wicks, I trust that you'll continue to work with opposition to address outstanding concerns, but I'm happy to support the bill today. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Sharp-Collins, ready for agenda item number six, AB 1027.

While you're coming up, I am making a plea to all the staff of all the Members of the Committee. I just need three more and we can get a quorum and we can vote on some stuff. So everybody please go. I get there's so many things happening this morning.

I got to go present a bill at some point. Also grab a colleague. Grab. Grab your Boss, grab your Boss and drag them down here just for a hot minute. We'll get a quorum and then they can run off into the wind. Assembly Sharp-Collins. Ready when you are.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and also Members. Today I am here to present AB 1027, a bill that strengthens the Department of Cannabis Controls authority to regulate cannabis product testing, ensuring consumer safety and product integrity and market transparency. When voters passed Proposition 64, they struck a deal that would provide a safe legal cannabis market.

Reports show that we are failing to deliver on that promise in part because the existent regulatory framework does not provide the Department of Cannabis Control adequate authority to regulate testing labs and perform oversight.

Recent investigations, including those by the Department of Cannabis Control and the Los Angeles Times, have found serious testing irregularities, including THC inflations, failure to report containment, fraudulent certificates of the analysis and a lack of oversight in track and trace compliance.

In one report, A sample of 150 randomly chosen California products found that 87% inaccurately had high THC potency levels, allowing the seller to charge a higher price for an inferior product.

Finding also revealed that some licensed laboratories have intentionally omitted pesticides and other containments to retain manufacturer clients, threatening consumer safety and also public health certificates of Analysis are supposed to be a means of tracking and verifying THC content and strained information. But with fraudulent certificates uncovered, both retailers and consumers are deceived to potentially dangerous results.

Finally, it has also been reported that some distributors have been caught selling products without proper testing verification through the track and trace system, undermining public, public confidence in the legal market. And unsafe legal market only pushes more consumers to the legal market for the cheaper price.

This is, this is tax money that is absolutely lost revenue to the state. And this is something that can hurt, especially when we think about what's going on right now when we're talking about, you know, a time where the state cannot afford to lose any revenue.

So AB 1027 addresses these issues in a few ways, including mandating blind proficiency testing for labs, granting the DCC authority for random quality assurance reviews, strengthening enforcement against non compliant products, improving transparency in product labeling, enhancing accountability in the distribution, and expanding DCC's recalling authority by modernizing product safety standards and increasing transparency can and enforcement.

AB 1027 protects consumers, safeguards public health and restores faith in the legal cannabis market. So with me today to offer additional testimony, which is I am thrilled to have you here to offer additional testimony is Amy Jenkins on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association, and I will now give you the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Assembly woman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association. We represent more than 300 licensed businesses across the supply chain, mainly retail, but we do have, we do have distribution as well as cultivation.

We are very committed to ensuring a regulated cannabis marketplace that prioritizes public health, consumer safety and fair competition. And we are very proud to sponsor AB1027 and want to thank the Assembly woman for her leadership on this issue. This is a measured and thoughtful bill that strengthens oversight of cannabis testing to improve transparency, support consumer.

Excuse me, support enforcement, consistency and reinforce consumer confidence in California's cannabis market. California has long required cannabis products to undergo extensive testing by licensed testing laboratories to ensure compliance with limits on pesticides, heavy metals and other contaminants.

And yet, as the author noted, recent findings make clear that further action and statutory changes are needed to maintain trust and accountability. So, as the author noted, there are a number of provisions in this Bill that we felt were needed to strengthen again our existing cannabis testing laws, and the author covered those in detail.

So I'll simply say that we believe these provisions are straightforward, enforceable and fiscally neutral and their impact will be very meaningful. They support public health, promote transparency and protect compliant operators from being undercut by bad actors who may be cutting corners or manipulating testing results.

So for these reasons we believe this bill is timely and necessary and we thank the Assembly woman for her leadership on this issue and response. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Seeing none. Any primary witnesses? zero, witness in support? Nope, nope. Just a movement. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any witnesses who want to add on in opposition to the bill?

Seeing none Bringing back the colleagues for questions or comments, please Assembly Member Hadwick.

Hi, I just want to thank the author for this bill. My district is plagued with illegal grows and I really like the it was just very thoughtful, thoughtfully written and a much needed answer. So I'd be proud to be a co author as well.

Thank you Assemblage Member Hadwick Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing non Assemblymember Sharpe-Collins Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

It's a great close. Thank you for the bill. It's certainly important that we ensure legal cannabis products are safe and advertised appropriately. So I'm happy to support the bill today when we get a quorum, which we are now two away two away from a quorum 90 minutes into the hearing. Who's counting? Thank you very much.

Some Member Bonta with agenda item number 7 AB 1271 ready when you I hope you have better luck in health than I have in BNP. Getting a quorum. Impressive is one way to put it. Abominable is another.

If you need me to sub in establish quorum, I'm happy to. Done. Good morning or after still afternoon? Morning. Who knows? Chair and Committee Members, I'm very thankful to be able to present this bill.

AB 1271, as amended, requires broadband Internet service providers to annually report key data, including broadband speed experienced by consumers, full pricing information and plan availability to an identified program within the Department of Consumer affairs unless the Department of Broadband is created.

The Bill ensures that this data will be made public in a user friendly, reliable and privacy protected format consistent with the California Public Records Act.

In addition, this bill includes findings and declarations acknowledging that while many factors can affect broadband speed, consumers have a reasonable expectation to receive the performance they are promised and transparency is essential to protect the public interest. Lastly, this bill also establishes a consumer complaint process to ensure timely responses and remedies for unresolved issues. What's the problem?

California is investing billions of dollars to expand broadband infrastructure, but many families still pay too much for service that doesn't meet their needs. Consumers are often quoted one price, but ultimately pay much more after hidden fees and surcharges. They are frequently promised specific speeds when purchasing Internet plans, but experience something that is much lower in service reality.

Today we lack consistent, transparent statewide data about what Californians are actually receiving and paying. But we do have a broad coalition of consumer advocates calling for affordable, reliable broadband. Without this data, consumers cannot make informed choices about their Internet service. Local governments cannot target smart investments or plan broadband expansion.

The state cannot identify, track or fix affordability gaps and deployment failures. Here to testify in support is Shana Englin, the Director of Digital Equity Los Angeles thank you.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Oh, thank you, Assemblymember Bonta, Chair Berman, Vice Chair Flora and Members of the Committee. I'm Shana EngLand, Director of the Digital Equity LA Coalition or DELA, and the Digital Equity Initiative at the California Community Foundation and we're here today as proud partners and co conveners of CAD, the California Alliance for Digital Equity in LA.

The advertised cost of Internet service is systematically higher in neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.

A Dulles study comparing advertised prices in low income versus high income census tracts found that low income neighborhoods were routinely advertised prices sometimes as much as $30 or $40 per month higher than those offered in nearby wealthier neighborhoods for the same service tiers, sometimes just blocks apart.

At least one comparison pairing a neighborhood with an 8% poverty rate was advertised the Internet ultra 500 Mbps service tier for $30 a month, while a neighborhood about a mile away with a 31% poverty rate was advertised $69 per month for that same service tier.

The lower income community was offered a service tier at the very bottom of the definition of broadband that $30 a month. A team at the UC Santa Barbara followed up with a study of more than 50,000 residential addresses across LA County and confirmed our findings, concluding that, quote, wealthier areas receive more bandwidth for less money.

Last year, Chinese for Affirmative Action in San Francisco published a report showing that a plan available at a North Beach address offers maximum speeds that are six times higher than the maximum speeds available at a Chinatown address for the same cost and those two addresses in that case study are five blocks apart.

In addition to disparate pricing, our communities face disparate service quality.

Our fellow CAD Members at Oakland Undivided partnered with Oakland Housing Authority to conduct in depth interviews and standardized site based speed tests at 17 affordable housing communities across Oakland and they ran nearly half a million speed tests at over 15,000 locations across Oakland and found that connections in the highest income zip code with the largest population of white residents were nearly 10 times faster than in the poorest.

The Fresno Digital Inclusion alliance, another of our partners in CAD, has over 15 million speed test measurements that echo those findings across the Central Valley. Today, there is no clear mechanisms for consumers, community advocates, local governments, or indeed the state to collect pricing or service quality data that's centered on the experience of California households.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Sure. DELA, as part of CAD, is proud to support AB 1271 because ensuring essential services like broadband are affordable and equitable, accessible requires reliable, transparent information, and because we all deserve, at minimum to get what we pay for.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support want to add on in support? Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elise Borth here on behalf of Odacio Gonzalez representing Next Gen Policy and support.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You've got two minutes each.

It's been a long time since I had you.

You used to be here all the time. I know. I'm going to hear about that later.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Janus Norman, on behalf of the California Broadband and Video Association, we are respectfully opposed to AB 1271. Let me just sort of start with saying we support empowering consumers with information.

But the main problem that we have with the bill is that it's not in harmony with the federal framework that is put in place to allow that communication to move forward. It's actually in contradiction to that.

So in many ways, the bill is requesting information that duplicates broadband pricing and speed disclosures that are already required under the Federal Communications Commission under the broadband nutrition label standards, which means consumers already have this information clearly stated in consistent in its format and how it's stated at the point of sale.

And it's also available online with regards to speeds and confirming the reliability of those speeds. The FCC oversees the Measuring Broadband America program, which is an ongoing nationwide study of consumer broadband performance in the United States.

The report the reports garnered from this program provide a snapshot of fixed broadband Internet access service performance utilizing a comprehensive set of performance metrics, including speed, latency and packet loss.

And then lastly, what we will note is adding an additional layer of government adjudication as it relates to complaints we also see as unnecessary and will likely result in increased delay, uncertainty and costs.

Again, we would Remind the Committee that the FCC has a consumer inquiries and complaints center that consumers can currently file complaints with via the phone Internet regarding sorry, phone, Internet and television issues.

And then lastly, we'll state as it relates to advertising, we are continuing to be governed by federal and state law and as it relates to truth in advertising on the services that we are offering. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we go to additional witnesses in opposition, we're going to take a quick pause to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please help us establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Great. We have a quorum. Moving on to additional witnesses in opposition to the bill. Anybody wants to add on in opposition to the bill, seeing none, bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments or for the first time this morning, motions and seconds. Assembly Member Macedo.

Hi, and if you answered this in your testimony, I'm so sorry, I was trying to hustle over. But my question is, is this bill duplicative of state or federal processes that already exist and is there a more efficient or effective way that we can accomplish this goal?

Thank you for the question. So I think whenever we have industry use the phrase increased delay, uncertainty and cost, it's essentially a dog whistle that we should all be very focused on hearing as just that.

The reality is that this bill does not create any duplicative processes because as the opposition indicated this, what is already offered is particularly around the point of sale and is available online. This bill is a consumer protection bill.

This bill is trying to ensure that when somebody has to make sure that they have an opportunity to just do a simple thing of get the service that they are paying for, that they have the ability to have that information reported in the aggregate and that the individual has a means to be able to report the concern beyond what most of us have to do of spending hours on the phone trying to get it resolved specifically with the ISP provider.

So it is not duplicative. And what is inefficient right now is the many hours, the multiple hours that individual consumers need to spend not getting their issue resolved and not having the benefit of knowing that what they are paying for is the service that they are actually getting and inability to resolve that issue.

She addressed that you had mentioned some of those duplicative things. Can you address what that means just so I can understand?

So the bill is not the process is not duplicative because it's a completely different process, but the information that the state would be receiving is duplicative. So at the federal level, they provide the Measuring Broadband America program, which essentially validates the speed offerings of at least your 12 largest wireline broadband performers.

So they look at what the broadband ISPs are stating and advertising that they are offering to customers. They then go out and procure a panel of individuals who through standardized testing will, at peak hours, basically do a speed test to a controlled modem. They call it a white box, but a controlled modem.

And that happens across the country to verify if indeed the speeds that are being advertised by those providers are indeed the speeds that individual households are actually receiving.

So in terms of the intent of what the information that's supposed to be garnered, it is duplicative and you do it in a way that quite frankly is not as reliable in our, in my perspective as the process and methodology of the Fcc.

Again, the process and the methodology of the FCC is they do their own panel of customers, they go out, they have consistency in terms of the technology that's being tested. There's consistency of testing things on peak hours so that you get the maximum level of congestion. There's just predictability in the process.

Rather than creating a, you know, self reported, we would say, overly burdensome process, right, in which you're getting information and data from the same data source.

If the point is you want to confirm the data that the provider is doing, the FCC model is a much better and preferred model, which is why we would suggest that you, in my earlier opening statement was align with how the FCC is currently doing it.

And if there needs to be sort of an enhanced participation of Californians within the FCC panel, that'll get you more reliable data in a way that isn't overly complicated and burdensome.

The FCC that may or may not exist at the rate that the Federal Government is moving around this. And also I just want to just be clear that the Federal Government what is reported to FCC is the advertised rate.

And again, what we are focusing on is individual consumers having the ability in the State of California to be able to have that information available to them.

The reality is that California is having to do a lot of things right now to ensure that we have the means to be able to understand the once in a lifetime investments that we've made in broadband and in many areas throughout our practice and policy.

We are seeking to ensure that California has the ability to have its own reporting and means to be able to gather the information that we need for consumers that are in the State of California. And this is another Bill that ensures that we have the ability to do that.

Thank you. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Any motions or seconds? Got a motion. Got a couple seconds. Would you like to close?

I respectfully request your Aye vote. And I want to particularly thank the Committee for its work on this bill. Thank you, Robbie.

Thank you to the author for accepting the Committee's amendments. It's understood that there continues to be respectful disagreement between the supporters and opponents of this bill about how the state should assess the availability of fast, affordable broadband in California, which is a discussion that will continue within the jurisdiction of other policy committees.

While this Committee has some reservations about the Department of Consumer affairs being the best agency to implement the bill, I appreciate the amendments that you've taken to address those concerns, and I'm happy to support the bill today as amended. Madam Secretary, will you please call the first vote of the day?

Happy to. AB 1271. Bonta. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Great. We'll leave that roll open. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Ahrens with the last bill of the day. Agenda item 8, AB 1332.

Have a motion and a second look at that. We're clicking on all cylinders now.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1332 aims to support California's seriously ill patients who have exhausted all other options and to seek comfort and effective solutions.

This bill would provide narrow authorization for cannabis outdoor cultivation micro businesses to ship medical medicinal cannabis products directly to that patient's home through an intrastate commercial carrier only after they have received valid medical documentation for that specific patient from a physician.

Families and caregivers are already dedicating a significant amount of time and energy caring for their loved ones who are ill. While this measure may impact only a small number of residents in California, it will have a profound positive effect on many palliative care patients, including children and adults.

We owe it to them to ensure that they are protected, loved and valued. Joining me today is Dr. Laurie Vollen, Dr. Who has experience in helping seriously ill patients access the correct cannabis products. And lastly, Pam Lopez with the Size Society of Cannabis Clinicians who can speak to technical aspects of the bill. Great.

You have two minutes each.

I am a California licensed board certified physician in clinical preventive medicine with more than 20 years experience helping patients with debilitating medical conditions find relief with medicinal cannabis products. My patients are primarily elderly and suffering from pain, chronic mental health disorders, Alzheimer's disease, debilitating insomnia, cancer, seizures or are in end of life hospice care.

They and their families are desperately seeking alternatives to addictive opiates, benzodiazepines and sleep medications associated with increased risks of dementia. It might seem counterintuitive to today's California Legislature, but 29 years after medicinal Marijuana was legalized in California, medicinal products have become virtually extinct in today's cannabis marketplace.

Long term patients cannot find any of the products that they were using effectively five years ago. No dispensary or delivery service has a full complement of medicinal products suitable for serving the needs of a variety of cannabis patients, especially cannabis naive patients desperately seeking to begin alternatives to dangerous and addictive pharmaceuticals.

California's medicinal cannabis patients have become orphans in the cannabis marketplace. Only three other California physicians that I know spend the majority of their clinical time helping patients harness the medicinal properties of cannabis. We are all wringing our hands.

A UCLA sponsored DCC funded study that surveyed 600 of medicinal marijuana patients who were receiving physician assisted guidance on using cannabis for medicinal conditions found that 85% experience effective or very effective relief from their debilitating conditions. Now many of those patients are losing access to those products as they disappear from the cannabis marketplace. Place.

These patients do not want to get high, which is virtually impossible. If you walk into any dispensary and buy a product. Medicinal products for my patients begin with tinctures or flower with very low concentrations of thc. Patient centered product labeling produced from sustainable resources, not just the cheapest input on the marketplace to ensure product consistency.

Such products no longer exist in in the cannabis marketplace.

If you could wrap up, that'd be great.

Both cannabis physicians and new and long term patients are floundering. AB 1332 is a lifeline to help sustain effective medicinal cannabis use.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Pam Lopez on behalf of the Society for Cannabis Clinicians, we had the parent of a pediatric patient scheduled to be here to speak to you all today. Because his child is so ill he was at the last minute not able to make the trip up. So I will summarize his comments very briefly.

His name is Cameron Tyson. His son Ashe has a severe form of epilepsy called Lennox Gastau Syndrome which is characterized by having multiple types of seizures and cognitive dysfunction. Ache and Mr. Tyson were able to find relief for many of the seizures that Ache experiences through low THC dose medicinal cannabis.

This that was effective for their family for several years. And then recently the singular business that produced the medicinal cannabis that worked for Ashe went out of business and they no longer had access to this medicine. They are now trying to cobble together solutions from the cannabis that is available through existing retail and dispensary chains.

But it's not the same. It's not the same medicinal cannabis. We are talking about unicorn patients in California, pediatric patients, elderly patients, folks at the end of their life who are very, very ill and they need a very specific type of medicinal cannabis. This bill creates a very narrowly crafted solution to allow that to happen.

I will note that the bill has a three year sunset. So if the Legislature finds that this bill does not function as narrowly as we intended can allow it to phase out. But we think we've got it just right and ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in support of the bill? Please just provide your name, organization you're with, if any and position on the bill. Mr. Chair, Members Matt Broad with the Teamsters in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mark Smith, on behalf of Origins Council representing a coalition of seven organizations and 400 licensed cannabis businesses in rural California. We want to clarify the analysis has us as support. We are supportive.

Amended we are requesting that the bill is written severely limits the potential impact of this Legislation we have requested to work with the author on amendments to address this. Thank you. Duly noted.

Thanks Chair Members Alicia Priego on behalf of Kiva in support.

Thank you.

Brianna Morales with UFCW Western State Council here in support. Thank. Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Any folks want to add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bring it Back to colleagues. Assembly Member Irwin.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. This is. It is really important that these patients have access to medicinal cannabis. So really appreciate the bill. I am curious. You mentioned that these companies are interstate. Shippers and so is there a conflict with federal law?

Technically speaking, every aspect of California's cannabis economy is in conflict with federal law. There is no more conflict with federal law than than any other aspect of the economy. There are several in inter within the state shippers that would be capable of doing this shipping without the cannabis product ever leaving the State of California.

And so we would be operating along the same lines as everything else in Canada.

Okay, so it's not shipper. So it's. So let's say ups. You wouldn't be able to utilize UPS unless.

Unless UPS is able to clarify that the product never leaves the state. So they have a closed loop system in the State of California and I don't want to name them because they're not. They do. Not officially. Well, I was saying, like, you sure, right, yeah.

Like it would not be UPS if a product like goes to a shipping center in Las Vegas and then, you know, goes from Northern California to a shipping center in Las Vegas and goes to Southern California, that wouldn't work.

But a direct commercial carrier that is capable of shipping a product directly from Northern California to Southern California and it stays within California the whole time.

The Department of Cannabis Control has broad jurisdiction over all of that cannabis activity and it would be contained entirely within California, similar to the way that everything else in cannabis in the state works. All right, good. Thank you.

Any additional questions? I'll move the bill. Comments, Motions? Seconds. There it is. Got a motion a seconds. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I respectfully asked for your Aye vote. As you know, my twin brother passed away just a few years ago from terminal cancer and struggled quite a bit at the end of his life to receive something like this that would have really eased his pain. Instead had to suffer quite a bit.

And so respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ahrens. And like I mentioned, another colleague last week. Thank you for taking your personal experience and turning it into advocacy to help others. Really, really important and really appreciate that.

I understand this bill is intended to support a very vulnerable population of medicinal cannabis patients and appreciate your efforts to keep the bill as narrow as possible to avoid disrupting the broader cannabis supply chain. Happy to support the bill today. Madam Secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1332 Ahrens the motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave that open for absent Members. Thank you very much. Speaking of absent Members, we have a lot of them. So if you're watching, please get your Member of the BMP Committee down to the hearing room. But in the meantime, now that we have a quorum, we can finally get motions and seconds for all the bills.

So we'll take it from the top. So we need a motion and a second for agenda item number one. AB 260. Got a motion? Got a second? Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open. We need a motion. A second for two. We need a motion to second for agenda item number two. Got a motion? Got a second. Thank you. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open. Need a motion and a second for agenda item number 3. AB714 4. Have a motion in a second. Thank you both.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open for absent Members. Agenda item number five. AB968. Do we need a motion? We need a motion. Got it. Got a second? Thank you both.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that open. Agenda item number six. AB 1027. We need a motion in a second. Got a motion and a second.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open. Agenda item number seven. Is that what we're on? Seven. AB 1271. We have a motion and a second. Anyone? Please open it for absent Members on AB 1271.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. Let's move on to agenda item number nine. AB 1482. We have a motion. We have a second. For the record, Assembly Member Castillo is already doing better than Assembly Member Hoover last year. Let it be known. Madam Secretary, please call the vote on AB 1482.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Congratulations. Assemblymember Castillo. Apologies. Assemblymember Hoover. Agenda item number 10. AB 1501. Got a motion? Got a second? Thank you very much. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number 11. AB 1502 by the Committee on Business and Professions. Got a motion? Got a second? Thank you. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. We'll move on to agenda item number 12. AB 1503, by the Committee. Got a motion? Got a second? Thank you. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll open. Moving on to agenda item 13. AB 1504, by the Committee. Got a motion to second. Thank you both.

[Roll Call]

All right, everybody, so we're gonna hang out here for a little bit. Staff who are watching, anytime your Member can come down here for five minutes to add on to all the bills. That would be amazing. We're probably going to wrap up by about 11:45. So if folks can get here before 11:45, that would be fantastic.

Mr. Lowenthal. Good to see you. Madam Secretary, please start from the Take it from the top.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

We will hold the rollout for absent Members. Appreciate you too. If I If I see any. Madam Secretary we'll just take it from the top again.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave that roll open for absent Members.

And with that BMP Committee is adjourned.