Assembly Standing Committee on Business and Professions

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Assembly business and professions committee. There are a total of 19 bills on today's agenda, including the following four bills on consent. AB 1915 by Assembly member Gabriel, AB 2435 by Assembly member Chen, AB 2485 by Assembly member Aarons, and AB 2772 by the Assembly business and professions committee.

Before we begin with today's agenda, I want to 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 predict permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. For each of the measures 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 witness will be limited to your name, your position on the bill, and the organization you represent, if any. I just wanna repeat that for everybody.

Any additional witnesses will be limited to your name, your position on the bill, your for the bill, your against the bill, and the organization that you 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. And with that, we will begin today's hearing. And right on time and right at the top is assembly member Zabir, AB 1693.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members. Today, I am proud to present AB 1693, which will support the state's diverse brick and mortar retail sector. In California, the retail industry directly employs more than 3,000,000 Californians over 500,000 retail establishments supporting statewide local economies. This sector is one of California's largest small business employers providing jobs, career opportunities, and pathways to financial security for entrepreneurs from historically underserved communities.

Across California, small business and retail establishments face unpredictable local permitting processes for tenant improvements that create significant hardships such as increased project costs, delayed business operations, and stagnant economic activity.

When unnecessary permitting delays prevent business owners from taking on needed interior improvements to an existing building, it not only hurts the business but the workforce and the surrounding community. Current law creates a streamlined approval process for restaurants seeking these types of projects. Establishing a similar model for retail projects will be essential for small businesses to survive in California.

This is a bill that follows on the bill that Assemblymember Wicks brought for, for restaurants last year and was signed into law and is currently in effect and really helping them. AB 18-1693 aims to address this by requiring local building departments to allow a licensed architect or engineer serving as a qualified professional certifier to review tenant improvements and certify those improvements for applicable building, health, and safety codes.

This bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the tenant improvement permit application within twenty business days of receiving a complete application and would deem the plan approved for permitting purposes if the local building department does not approve or deny the application within that time frame.

Additionally, this bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing deficiencies identified in the initial denial, limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within ten business days of receipt. AB 1693 is critical as as reducing these permitting delays will promote economic activity throughout the state while maintaining appropriate safety and compliance standards.

Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your vote at the appropriate time. And with me today in support of the bill is Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association.

Great. You've got two minutes.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Ryan Allain, the California Retailers Association, proud to cosponsor AB 1693. We thank Assemblymember Zbur for working with us to address the issue of lengthy delays and tenant improvement projects. Retailers have experience across the state. The California Retailers Association is the only state statewide association representing all segments of the retail industry, including general merchandise, department stores, mass merchandise, super super store markets, grocery stores, chain drug, especially retail, auto vision, jewelry, hardware.

These are all the types of stores you see on your, main streets in your districts. As Assemblymember Zbur stated, AB 1693 requires a sped up process for approving and denying tenant approving applications within twenty days. This is needed as retailers have conveyed to us that permit turn permit turnaround at times for tenant improvements routinely stretch into multiple months across California with average processing times around twelve weeks, but also reaching thirty one weeks and or more in some jurisdictions.

Retailers continue to experience recurring challenges, extended review periods, multiple rounds of comments, portal portal out portal outages, and unanticipated intake requirements. These lengthy review periods significantly delay basic interior build outs, and time is critical, especially for small and midsize retailers.

Delays can mean lost revenue, higher construction costs, and in some cases, decisions not to move forward at all. For all these reasons, California Retailers Association is proud to cosponsor AB 1693, and we ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? Any primary witnesses who wanna add on in opposition or

any primary witnesses who want to testify in opposition to the bill? Anybody who wants to add on as a me too opposition witness to the bill? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to my colleagues for any questions or comments on the bill. Seeing none, Assemblymember Zbur, would you like to close?

At the appropriate time, I've just requested aye vote, and thank you very much. Really, I do wanna thank your staff for the for the careful consideration of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. As you can see, we are far, far away from having a quorum. But I appreciate you bringing the bill forward, and happy to support the bill today. Thanks. I see Assemblymember Soria in the audience.

Thank you for joining us this morning. You've got agenda item number six, AB 2010

And just hit the little there you go. Thank you.

Sorry. Good morning, Chair and Members. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments, and I wanna thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with us on this bill. AB2010, the spay neuter improvement for pets act, also known as the SNP Act, permits high quality, high volume spay and neuter to be performed in locations without separate surgical suites while maintaining California's high health and safety standards for veterinary surgery.

California is in the midst of a multi decade pet overpopulation crisis, which has only worsened since the pandemic.

While there are many contributing factors to this crisis, the simple fact is that California's veterinary shortage has meant that the number of animals spay and neutered every year has not kept up with the number of pets that need these services. This has led to severely overcrowded shelters, large numbers of stray, and abandoned animals, and hundreds of thousands of healthy animals are euthanized every single year.

The crisis is even more dire in rural regions like the Central Valley, where the nearest access to spay and neuter services may be an hour away and unaffordable to many disadvantaged communities. I've heard it directly from many of my communities that they need more help and support to address this crisis. Fortunately, high quality, high volume spay and neuter offers a pathway to address this growing crisis.

Just a few weeks ago, I toured the city of Fresno's animal center, something I helped support when I was on the city council, and saw animal balance in action delivering high quality, high volume spay and neuter services. It was impressive, and it reinforced something we already know. We have solutions. We just need to scale them. The only issue, was that, the Fresno Animal Center is far away from these communities like Kalinga and Kerman and Mendota.

So we need to make sure that these are more accessible and in the communities. So while a veterinarian using traditional spay and neuter techniques can help less than 10 animals a day, high quality, high volume practitioners can safely help many times that number as surgeries are much quicker through the use of efficient workflows and the smallest incisions possible. I will tell you, I saw them, and they were really, really efficient.

However, regulatory barriers currently not only prevent high quality, high volume spay and neuter from being used to its maximum potential, but it prevents the use of mobile animal sterilization hospitals or known as MASH clinics, which can bring those traveling high quality, high volume units to operate in the underserved and rural areas.

AB 2010 addresses this issue by creating targeted exemptions for high quality, high volume spay and neuter spay and neuter from existing requirements for aseptic surgeries to be carried out in a dedicated surgical room free of shelving and with equipment for viewing radiographs.

Exemptions from these standards will permit the SMASH clinics to perform affordable pop up, high quality, high volume spay and neuter events in communities with the greatest need while still meeting high standards of health and patient safety. Because in places like Fresno, Madera, and the High Desert and across the Central Valley, families often have to drive more than sometimes an hour to see a veterinarian. That's not access. That's a true barrier.

My office has had productive conversations with the veterinary medical board, and I'm committed to continuing to refine AB2010 to provide the best possible implementation of our shared goal to increase access to affordable, high quality, high volume spay and neuter services.

The SNP Act provides a much needed fix to allow spay and neuter services at the skill needed to meet the public need. And with with that, here with me today to testify in support of AB2010 are Emma Clifford, executive director and founder of Animal Balance, and doctor Grant Miller, director of regulatory affairs for the California Veterinary Medical Association.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Emma Clifford. I am the president of Animal Balance, an organization who has brought MASH and MASH style clinics to communities internationally and now in The United States since 2020. MASH or Mobile Animal Sterilization Hospital is an effective, safe, replicable, and scalable strategy for reducing the overpopulation of cats and dogs. MASH events are accessible for all communities.

MASH has been proven on the Galapagos Islands and done successfully in several states by Animal Balance. With the passing of AB2010, this effective international strategy will come to California, saving hundreds of thousands of lives and dollars. Through temporary targeted high quality high volume spay neuter clinics, MASH reduces overpopulation across communities it serves by stopping the breeding of cats and dogs.

The MASH veterinary teams deploy to the communities in need with all the veterinary equipment and set up in the clinic inside one large room such as a community center. Local partners provide the volunteers to form all the nonmedical tasks.

These are true community centered events. Under the current law, MASH events must fit inside existing clinical facilities that have a surgical suite which is surrounded by walls and a door. These facilities were not built for high quality, high volume spay and neuter clinics and the requirements never contemplated this type of innovation for spay and neuter. TrueMASH clinics are set up in a circular fashion inside one room, spaying and neutering approximately 80 animals a day.

Using one room, the surgeons can see and hear the recovery area, which is where the animals are waking up from anesthesia, the most critical point in the process.

Over 200 surgeries can safely be performed over three days in any location. MASH clinics reduce the number of unwanted animals who end up in shelters, reducing euthanasia. Reducing shelter impact saves funds at every level of California government and aligns with the state policy that no adoptable or treatable animal should be euthanized. Let's pass AB2010 and progress towards ending the overpopulation of cats and dogs together. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Go ahead.

Good morning, Chair Berman and Members. Thank you so much for hearing this important bill today. Also, thank you to the assembly BNP staff, for your suggestions to make the bill better and to Assemblymember Soria for tackling this very important barrier. The Veterinary Medical Association is is very pleased that we are now thinking outside the box in in trying to solve California's epic pet overpopulation problem, which has plagued our state for over fifty years. The veterinarians have have played by the rules.

We've done everything that we can do within our veterinary hospitals, but it's very evident that, we need to get more aggressive with solving pet overpopulation. And the MASH style clinics that Emma Clifford and and her types of group provide are just that answer. It's remarkable to think that you can perform 30 to 40 surgeries in a day and and successfully remove an organ from an animal in in in that volume, but that's exactly what they've mastered in doing.

And we wanna help clear the way to make that easier for the state of California. So the surgery room requirements that we're asking to be exempted from are very reasonable, and we do believe that these animals will remain safe.

We've been shown through all of the research and data that they've collected from the hundreds of thousands of animals that have received the high quality, high volume spay neuter that these animals walk away from this procedure fine. They go on to live perfectly healthy lives. And so we believe that finding this compromise where we're removing very specific select surgery room requirements in order to facilitate this is a win for all. We're very excited about this bill.

We believe it's a piece of a larger puzzle that we need to to continue to put together to solve these problems that we've had, and we're very much appreciative of all of those who are willing to lend a hand.

So we're asking that of you today and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? Any any additional witnesses who wanna oh, come on up. Perfect. I know there's a, it's a crazy time in the hearing room today.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Julianna Tetlow on behalf of San Diego Humane Society, proud co-sponsor in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dear Members of the Assembly, my name is Mary Drisellao. I'm a staff attorney with the San Francisco SPCA's Shelter Policy and Legal Services Program, which provides support to shelters and rescues around the state in areas directly related to this bill. The SFSPCA is in full support of AB2010 because we believe that sterilization is the only tool we have to combat.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And and I we're gonna try to set an example for everybody else in the hearing room. Just provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill. Thank you very much.

Chair, Bob Gutierrez with the San Francisco SBCA in support. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Karen Lange on behalf of the Humane World for Animals as well as the California Animal Welfare Association in support, and thank you.

Thank you. Good morning.

Josh Gallagher on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thanks so much. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Come on up. You all have two minutes. You can come up to the to the table.

And just hit the little get the little microphone button.

Good morning. I'm Julie Varga, president of Fix Our Shelters. Our coalition of animal rescue and advocacy partners across the state of California support the California veteran veterinary medical boards oppose unless amended position on AB2010. All agree, increased spay neuter and TNR resources are key to reducing shelter intake, high euthanasia, and our epic overpopulation crisis.

But should years of failed policies espoused by the key sponsors of this legislation justify lowering medical standards that could easily expose animal patients and consumers to significant risk without addressing the disastrous and unlawful policies of reduced intake that continue to turn animals away at shelters, all the spay neuter in the world will not be enough.

Leaving animals to breed, suffer, and die outside shelters has clearly failed animals and our communities. It's failed public safety and trust and simply defies logic and common sense. The same could be said for AB2010 as it ignores the vital role the veterinary medical board plays in protecting animals and consumers. High quality, high volume spay/neuter surgery is a specialty who whose success depends on experienced and highly trained surgical teams. Spate procedures are invasive abdominal surgeries requiring restricted adherence to sanitary protocols.

Even slight differences in surgical experience and training and the variables inherent to temporary or multipurpose surgical settings can greatly impact patient and consumer risk. The veterinary medical board's process exists to evaluate these risks through a clinical and specific scientist scientific lens. Circumventing that process substitutes policy expediency for medical oversight. The key sponsors can use their vast resources today to increase spay neuter capacity across the state.

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

Meantime, please oppose 2010 until these amendments come forth. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Topcat Rescue strongly supports expanding access to high volume spay neuter and TNR services, especially for cats who have borne the brunt of failed policies pushed by the sponsors of this bill. However, relaxing vital veterinary regulations will not increase access, only funding will. The sponsors will come with combined resources exceeding $300,000,000 can provide real solutions by funding low cost spay neuter through existing compliant high volume providers.

This overpopulation and euthanasia crisis was driven in a large part by reduced intake policies promoted by many of the same organizations supporting AB210, 2010, excuse me.

Policies that resulted in unsterilized animals being turned away in violation of California law. Until shelters stop illegally turning away unsterilized cats and kittens, we are simply chasing our tails. Further, AB2010 bypasses the Veterinary Medical Board's regulatory authority, the body charged with protecting animal and consumer safety. Animal Balance is currently the only MASH active MASH style operator in California and has been operating outside veterinary guidelines for nearly two years, increasing its revenue by over $1,500,000.

What happens when standards are relaxed and less experienced operators follow?

High volume surgery requires specialized skills and oversight. This is exactly what the Veterinary Medical Board is meant to regulate. These clinics are not low cost, approximately $43,000 for a three day event, requiring 12 to 14 local volunteers per day with no consistent follow-up care. Cats and Kittens need help, but through the veterinary medical board's process, not around it. If the sponsors truly want to help, they can fund compliant providers and stop policies that violate the law.

While well intentioned by the author AB2010 ignores critical safeguards and will not solve this crisis. Respectfully ask for your nay vote for 2010.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Give us one second.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Matthew McKinney, deputy executive officer for the California Veterinary Medical Board. Our board has an opposed unless amended position on this bill. Our proposed amendments are to address clarity and implementation concerns. We look forward to continued collaboration with the author and sponsors to address these concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I apologize for testifying out of order. Britney Benesi on behalf of the ASPCA in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back to my colleague for questions or comments. If not seeing any, Assemblymember Soria, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much, Chair, again, for the opportunity to present, this. I just, for the record, I wanna make it very clear that in my district, to the communities that I'm trying to help, there are no shelters nearby. There are no veterinarians that live in their community, and this bill actually will remove those challenges and barriers where these pop up clinics can come and help address the overpopulation crisis that many of my rural disadvantaged communities are. And that's why I am doing this bill.

So I wanna thank you guys for working with us. We recognize, you know, that there's been, additional proposed amendments. We look forward to working with those that are willing to wanna do the work and actually provide, some additional tools because we know that sometimes in the regulatory, arena, it takes three to four years to pass regulations, and we can't wait for another three to four years. We need some actions today. And so thank you so much for your willingness to work with us.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB2010. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Soria, for bringing forward this important measure to address the pet overpopulation crisis. It's critical that low cost services reach communities that don't have access to a traditional vet clinic. I I understand that you are working through feedback from the veterinary medical board, and I trust that you and your sponsors will work to address their concerns. I'm happy to support the bill today when we have a quorum. Thanks so much for your presentation.

And I believe you're also going to present agenda item number seven, AB2195. Great. So we're ready when you are. Yeah.

Thank you, chair and members. I am here to present AB 2195 on behalf of assembly member, Celeste Rodriguez. AB 2195 is about a simple idea. If we want parents to support their children, we should not take away the license they need to do the work. Under current law, when a parent falls, more than thirty days behind, the state can move to deny or suspend licenses.

That can include licenses tied to a person's job or livelihood. For low income parents, that penalty can be self defeating. Taking away a work related license can make it harder to stay employed, harder to get back on track, and harder for children to receive the consistent support. California already recognized this problem in 2022 by passing SB 1055, which limited driver's license suspensions for parents at or below 70% of the county medium income. AB 2195 builds on that same model.

Allowing parents to keep their occupational licenses is a more effective approach. It keeps the focus where it belongs, getting support to children by helping parents stay connected to work. AB 2195 does not excuse an unpaid child support. It instead ensures enforcement does not stop a parent from being able to provide for their child. Assembly member Celeste Rodriguez appreciates the California Child Support Association's input and is committed to continuing discussions that could help address and relieve their concerns as the bill moves forward.

Here to testify, in support of AB 2195 are Rebecca Gonzales with Western Center on Law and Poverty and Sam Wilkinson to end child poverty.

Great. Thanks so much. You have two minutes each.

Good morning.

And just hit the little mic button.

Thank you. Perfect. Good morning. My name is Rebecca Gonzales, policy advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. We are cosponsors of this bill along with the 30 plus organizations and the Truth and Justice in Child Support Coalition.

AB 2195 eliminates a counterproductive policy which limits the earnings capacity of low income parents who owe child support by automatically suspending their occupational license after thirty days. This bill only applies to those who make less than 70% of the area median income. This bill makes sense for several reasons besides helping to ensure low income people can afford to pay their child support. One, licensing board should not be tasked with this punitive policy which punishes poor people.

This does not fulfill their public protection mission and perpetuates poverty.

Poor people are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Two, if a low income person is behind on their child support, much of which is owed to the government and not the family, the threat of license suspension could act as a deterrent, keeping people out of pursuing a better paying job. Three, many of these folks are in CalWORKs, and the goal of CalWORKs is to get people back to work, putting occupational license suspension in direct conflict with that principle.

Lastly, license suspension should be reserved for violations directly related to the practice of the profession. An Orange County eval evaluation of SB 1055, which ended driver's license suspensions as an enforcement tool for the same reason and for the same population, found the agency experienced no significant impact on collections.

In fact, collections increased. Additionally, the bill resulted in significant administrative savings equal to full two full time caseworkers. California has other more effective tools to collect child support such as wage garnishments, tax refund offsets, bank levies, credit reporting, passport denials and revocations, and adding interest to late payments. None of these enforcement tools interfere with a noncustodial parent's ability to earn a living and several put money directly into the pockets of the custodial parent. AB 2195 will remove a barrier to employment and economic stability

for low income parents and then the overbroad economic stability for low income parents and then the overbroad and punitive impact of this policy. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Sam Wilkinson, and I'm with End Child Poverty in California here to read, the story of a parent in Los Angeles, Demont Hampton. My child support obligations began in 1995, and over time, as I could not pay the full amount, my child support arrears just ballooned. My debt got so high that I just felt like I was stuck in a hole.

My children were in their thirties, and I had over a $100,000 in child support arrears, most of it interest.

Over the last decade, I have been on a fixed income. Although I was making regular payments of $50 a month every six months or so, because of my arrears, my driver's license would get suspended. When this happened, I contacted the DMV and child support, but it was hard to get in contact with the right person. Once I got into the contact with them, child support said they would lift the suspension. But sometimes it would take months to get my license reinstated.

SB 1055, I did not have to worry about my license being suspended anymore. I had not been able to work for a long period of time, but once I was mentally, physically, and emotionally better, I wanted to go back to school to learn a skill. So I looked into programs that would train me to become a barber. When I first received my barbering license, they immediately suspended my license because of my arrears. I called them back and they fixed it.

About one month later, it happened again, and I had to call them back and they lifted the suspension. About two days later, it happened again. The person I talked with knew that my license kept getting suspended, but there wasn't anything she could do. I would have to call, get in contact with them, wait for them to call me back. She would ask a few questions, and then she would release the hold.

This happened even though I was making regular payments as they requested me to do. It was really important to me to address my child support arrears because they held me back from growing in my life. I could not move forward while I had such a big debt. Over the years, I talked to child support workers and family law facilitators about my arrears, but no one ever told me about the debt reduction program. When I went to neighborhood legal services, an attorney told me about the DRP.

When I asked my child support caseworker about it, she told me that in order to apply for the debt reduction program, LA child support had to first audit my account, which could take up to a year. Once the audit was complete, they sent me a copy of the application. After I returned the application, it took them more than three months to respond and accept my offer, and they told me I had to make a payment within thirty days.

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

Absolutely.

Just two more sentences. They also would not show me a copy of the debt relief agreement until I had made a payment. Luckily, I was able to make the payment and sign the agreement after the payment was made and my debt was forgiven. Now that my debt is forgiven, I don't have to worry about my license being suspended due to child support arrears, but AB 2195 would help others like me maintain their licenses so they can work and pay their child support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on in support of the bill? If anyone wants to add on in support of AB 2195, seeing none, any primary witnesses in do we the primary witnesses in opposition? Great. Come on up.

You've got two minutes each.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Jim Lites on behalf of the California Child Support Association. Wanted to make sure the committee knew that in the first instance where someone is subject to licensure suspension, it takes a grand total of seven months for that process to occur.

After the individual, the obligor is thirty days late, then it is a six month process where they're notified, and it's used by our county child support agencies to as a tool to bring, those obligors to the table to bring those benefits to the children that have missed those benefits for up to seven months before any licensure, revocation or suspension occurs. So we have with us here, mother Lori who can speak more directly to how this tool is effective for the association.

I do also wanna mention, Assemblymember Soria noted that, we do look forward to working with the author to see where we can figure out, some compromises here.

Appreciate that. Thanks. You have two minutes.

My name is sorry. Thank you. My name is Lori, and I am a mom with a child support case, here in Sacramento County. I am also an employee of Sacramento County Department of Child Support Services. I have a child support case, and my daughter's father owes, child support.

For many years, I have been the one to shoulder 100% of the financial responsibility for raising our daughter because he did not want to pay his support voluntarily. That's because he's worked for himself or in the underground economy for well over a decade. And so his income is not reported, and other enforcement tools such as withholding his paycheck, levying bank accounts, intercepting tax refunds, they don't work for him because he doesn't do those things. He doesn't have bank accounts in his name.

He doesn't file his taxes.

He doesn't have a paycheck that they can garnish. The only thing that keeps him coming back and and talking to Department of Child Support is knowing that his licenses could not- could be suspended if he doesn't make his payments. I don't want her father to lose his ability to work and he hasn't lost his ability to work. It simply brings him to the table so that he can have those conversations with DCSS and find a way to keep himself consistent on his monthly payments.

Unfortunately, his history has shown that he's not willing to make those payments voluntarily.

And so having a tool like this with DCSS keeps him coming back and having that positive communication with his caseworker and paying his support every month.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses in opposition to the bill? This is opposition to AB 2195. Opposition to 2195? Come on up.

There's a microphone here in the front. If you'll just provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Good morning. My name is Amy Giselle. I am a parent representing myself. I strongly oppose AB 2195. It is unfortunate that many parents-

Thank you very much. Sorry, we're at the point. We've had our primary witnesses who who testified for two minutes each. Now we're at the time where people can add on in opposition, but it's just your name, organization, if any, and and position on the bill. And so-

I oppose it.

Thank you for clarifying.

Thank you very-

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Hi. Nicole Smith, and I am also in opposition of the bill.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hi. I am Viridiana Silva, and I am opposing this bill.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Bring it back to colleagues for questions or comments, Assemblymember Addis.

Thank you. And thank you, Assemblymember Soria, for presenting this bill on behalf of Assemblymember Rodriguez, who I know deeply cares about children. I am gonna support the bill today. I did, let the author know this. I have a lot of concerns about this bill.

I, wanna appreciate the I wanna appreciate you for coming and telling your story about child support. I know how hard that is to do. And as somebody who was raised by a single mother who really struggled financially with because of lack of child support payments, this is an issue that I find really complicated because on the one hand, of course, we wanna support parents who are paying child support in paying those paying that child support. And, of course, they need those licenses.

On the other hand, I find it incredibly, incredibly unfair to the children and unfair to the parents who are not receiving those child support payments and and really feel for the story that you've told and have experienced that as a child of a mom who was not getting those child support payments.

So I'm gonna support today, but with massive reservations around doing things that have the potential of standing in the way of collecting those payments. That said, I also read in the analysis, and there's some evidence out there that in allowing people to keep their licenses, they actually do pay more into the system. And so that is where the, the tug lies for me. So I wanna appreciate the opposition for saying you're continuing to work.

I hope that the author I know you can't make that commitment on behalf of the author, but I will just say publicly, I really hope the author will continue to work with the opposition to to fine tune this and make sure that we've done everything we can not to harm children in the process of trying to help parents who, by the way, have this responsibility and are delinquent and and and need to be showing up in a very real way with responsibility to those children, and we have to do everything we can to make sure that that's happening.

Any any additional questions or comments from colleagues? Seeing none, Assemblymember Shiavo, would you like to- Assemblymember Soria. I see I see Shiavo right behind you. Assemblymember Soria, would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. I will just reiterate what assembly member, Rodriguez did, you know, put in her statement that she does appreciate the California Child Support Association's input, and she's committed to continuing those discussions that could help address and relieve the concerns as the bill moves forward. So with that, I will respectfully ask for an aye vote for her bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Soria, for presenting this bill on behalf of Assemblymember Rodriguez. Appreciate the comments from from everybody, witnesses for and against, and and from my colleague, on the committee, and, appreciate the the willingness to continue working on issues as the bill moves forward. I'll be happy to support the bill once we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Thanks, everybody.

Now, Assemblymember Schiavo, we're ready for you with agenda item number eight, AB 2311.

Hello.

Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you so much, mister chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2311, the public hospital physician stability act. California's public health care district hospitals are a critical lifeline serving some of our most diverse and underserved urban and rural communities. These hospitals are locally governed, publicly accountable, and often serve a higher share of Medi Cal patients than the state average. However, they face growing financial pressure, especially with reach recent actions such as HR 1 and will significantly cut Medi Cal funding.

At the same time, these hospitals are uniquely disadvantaged. They are the only public hospitals in California that cannot directly employ physicians. This restriction makes it harder for district hospitals to recruit and retain doctors, especially as physicians increasingly prefer stable employment with predictable salaries and benefits. Without the ability to directly hire physicians, many of these hospitals face worsening staffing shortages and uncertainty in maintaining services.

AB 2311 simply allows public health care district hospitals to directly employ physicians just like other public hospitals, FQHCs, and academic medical centers that already can.

This added flexibility will help hospitals compete in the health care labor market, stabilize their workforce, and ensure patients continue to receive timely care. In discussions with my office, California Medical Association has emphasized that California law must continue to preserve physician independence and ensure that only those district hospitals with an appropriate range of Medi Cal payers are eligible for inclusion.

I believe that we share the twin goals of both effectively protecting doctors' clinical judgment as well as providing flexibility to allow hospitals to keep providing high quality care to their communities, and we will continue to have those conversations to reach that goal together. Here to testify in support is Sarah Bridge with the Association of California Health Care Districts and sponsor of the bill and doctor Sharayas Mueller.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, chair and members. Sarah Bridge on behalf of the Association of California Health Care Districts here as proud sponsors of AB 2311. I wanna start by thanking the author, staff, and the committee for continued discussion on the bill. ACHG is committed to working with the opposition to address concerns, and we continue to work on amendments. I wanna start by putting a fine point on the following.

District hospitals are public hospitals owned by their communities who do not profit off of the care they provide. Every dollar the district receives goes to making care more accessible and affordable in their communities. We have heard from the opposition that concerns hinge on two key points. The first being doctor autonomy and the second being displacement of existing contractual relationships. We agree and have never intended to displace or control any clinical professional, especially our doctors.

In appropriations, we intend to take amendments to ensure medical staff have the appropriate and practical say in hospital staffing in line with existing law, clarify and strengthen the existing language to ensure clarity that the hospitals cannot and will not interfere with clinical judgment, and ensure that existing relationships are not supplanted and contractual relationships may be maintained. We wanna be incredibly clear.

There is practically no way for a district hospital to utilize this tool to exclusively hire physicians, nor would that model be favorable in any of our communities. We simply wish to have the same tool as every other public hospital in the state. As noted in page four of the committee analysis, even in instances where the law allows for direct employment of health care professionals, corporations are still generally prohibited from unduly influencing the judgment of the licensee.

Current law is reflected in the language and intent of AB 2311. It simply offers an option for a physician to make the independent choice on their employment akin to nearly every other profession in line with the current trend in health care that favors employment. We look forward to the ongoing discussions with the stakeholders on the length and data surrounding a potential pilot and the other suggested amendments. To put it simply, AB 2311 is about access to care.

It brings a commonly used tool for other public hospitals to the remaining that who without it.

We and without this tool, we will continue to struggle to compete in an ever competitive labor market. It's for those reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Hit the little mic button. There you go.

Thank you. First time. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of AB 2311. My name is doctor Shreyas Mallur. I'm the chief quality officer for El Camino Health, which is a public district hospital located in Santa Clara County.

I'm an internal medicine physician who has practiced in hospitals for more than twenty years in California. I worked as an independent physician as part of a small medical group and as well as a large medical group now employed at El Camino Health. This bill is simply about giving local public district hospitals the same ability to directly employ physicians that public counties and public academic medical centers have long enjoyed. This is not a new or unproven concept.

Physicians have been directly employed in these public practice settings for decades.

In fact, many of the public practice settings which directly employ physicians deliver some of the highest quality clinical care in the state. Physicians practicing at these hospitals govern themselves within the independent organized medical staff including electing their own leaders. They are the ones who who set clinical care guidelines for the hospital. This bill is not a threat to patients or to the physician patient relationship.

What is a real threat is a significant increase in private equity involvement in health care and their continued intrusion on the relationship that physicians can have with their patients.

What keeps me up at night as chief quality officer is making sure that we all we have all of the physicians that we need to deliver care to the community that owns us. The unacceptable alternative is limited access for patients with the greatest need. AB 2311 is a tool for public district hospitals to recruit and retain physicians, particularly those coming out of residency, many of whom prefer the stability of being an employee. Physicians should have the right to choose what works best for them.

This modest bill would give public district hospitals and physicians who prefer employment an option that currently exist at all other public hospital settings.

AB 2311 would increase physician choice, support the independence of public district hospitals, and increase access to care.

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

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Perfect. Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill?

Good morning, mister chair and members. Connie Delgado on behalf of the District Hospital Leadership Forum in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, mister chair and members. Jim Wood on behalf of the following. Northern Inyo Hospital, Washington Hospital District, Plumas Hospital District, Healthy Petaluma District and Foundation, Del Puerto Health Care District, Salinas Valley Hospital District, Antelope Valley Healthcare District, Soledad Healthcare District, Palomar Healthcare District, El Camino Healthcare District, Desert Health Care District, Fallbrook Fallbrook Regional Healthcare District, Kaweah Delta District Hospital, and Lompoc District Hospital, all in support.

Thank you, mister Wood. Good to see you.

Andrew Mendoza on behalf of the Alzheimer's Association in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? You will have two minutes each.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians in respectful opposition to AB 2311. For emergency physicians, we feel that the current structure where there is a firewall between emergency physicians and hospitals is a good one. But one of the concerns that we have centered around hospitals having different incentives, than emergency physicians in the sense that hospitals tend to be more focused on the institution and the physical health of that of that entity.

Performance based metrics like the press gaining satisfaction scores and door to discharge times are designed to maximize throughput.

Emergency physicians are trained to advocate for safety, which often means slowing down to catch a subtle diagnosis or denying a patient's request for unnecessary narcotics or antibiotics. These types of actions work directly against satisfaction scores, and a hospital may use these satisfaction scores to judge an emergency physician as it relates to, their employment. When a physician's salary is tied to these metrics, a troubling due loyalty exists. A choice becomes between the best medical care and the best metric.

For emergency physicians, we wanna be left in a position where we're making the best choices for our patients without any undue influence from an employer.

And for these reasons, we're respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. George Soares of the California Medical Association here in respectful, opposed unless amended position to AB 2311. I'd like to begin by acknowledging our ongoing conversations with the bill's, sponsor and the author's office regarding potential amendments, and we remain committed to working towards a resolution.

One of our core concerns is that AB 2311 creates a broad permanent exemption to a foundational safeguard that ensures medical decisions are made by physicians without undue institutional influence, such as compensation models, revenue targets, credentialing, and privileging that can shape clinical decision making even in public district hospitals. This influence is not theoretical. Research shows that hospital employment of physicians is associated with increased utilization, higher service prices, and no corresponding improvement in the quality of care, undermining affordability for both patients and the state.

Additionally, while this bill the bill's messaging references pressures from HR 1 on hospitals with high medical and Medicaid payer mixes, the bill itself is not limited to those financially vulnerable district hospitals. CMA continues to request that the bill be narrowed to apply only to those facilities, and we appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author's office and sponsor on the issue.

As the largest organization representing physicians in California, we are seeking this and other amendments because we believe this bill risks, poses to to physicians' autonomy are not outweighed by the potential benefits cited by district hospitals, such as improved recruitment and retention. From our perspective, physicians' reluctance to practice in California is driven less by employment models and more by structural challenges, including the high cost of living, particularly housing, and lengthy state licensure timelines.

CMA has recently worked to address this very issue by advocating to streamline licensure for out of state physicians.

That said, we look forward to continuing our work with the sponsor and author on amendments to remove our opposition, and we appreciate your attention to our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses wanna add on in opposition to the bill?

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Society of Pathologists, the California Radiological Society, and the California Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on in opposition to the bill? Seeing none, Any colleagues who have any questions or comments on the bill? Seeing none. Assemblymember Schiavo, would you like to close?

Oops. Sorry. I know how this works. We continue to work with the opposition, as I mentioned, as we both mentioned in our comments and, you know, are looking at different ways to narrow it in terms of Medicaid mix. But at the end of the day, you know, this is a restriction that only applies to 16 hospitals in the state.

All of the other hospitals can directly employ physicians. And so, you know, if it were such a terrible system, everybody else would be trying to leave it and put bans on it and make it incredibly problematic, but that's not happening. And we know that this younger generation of physicians are more interested in just doing the work of a physician and not running a business as, you know, an independent, you know, small business owner or physician and would rather just be employed. It's more desirable.

They need to have reliable contracts.

This is an opportunity to do that, especially in hospitals that have very limited opportunity to recruit for rural or urban areas, underserved communities that really need quality physicians in those communities. So we think that this is, you know, an important step forward, something that levels the the playing field for all hospitals. And we continue to to work together and think that we can get to a a reasonable place that works for everybody and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Schiavo, for your presentation of this bill today and for your advocacy for our public hospitals, including one located in my district. I recognize that this bill still has substantial opposition from within the medical profession, and I appreciate your commitment to continue working with opposition to negotiate as close to a compromise as possible. In the meantime, I'm happy to support the bill today, but we still don't have a quorum. One, two, three, four, five, six. Thank you very much.

We're close. We're close. Thanks, y'all. Let me put out a public plea to staff who whose bosses serve on the business and professions committee. Go find your boss and bring them down to the hearing room so we can establish a quorum, and then everyone else can run off to all the things they have to do.

Thank you for that. But in the meantime, Assemblymember Jackson, you have agenda item number three. You look nervous. Agenda item number three, AB 1796. Should I be nervous?

Thank you very much, mister chair, committee members. This is AB 1796, which would include a professional interior designer on the California architects board and create a licensure pathway for interior designers. Under current law, California is one of the very few states that does not have licensure for professional interior designers. Decades ago, lawmakers created a volunteer board for interior designers that simply does not work for the public or interior designers themselves. Interior design is often misunderstood as a pure purely aesthetic discipline.

In reality, it is a technical life safety function embedded within the built environment. Every decision related to interior materials, layout, lighting, and circulation has direct implications for whether occupants can safely navigate, occupy, and evacuate a space. Professional interior designers are trained to apply building codes, fire safety standards, accessibility requirements, and human centered design principles. These are not optional considerations. They are determinants of whether a space is safe or hazardous.

With me today is Melissa and bol, with Boulder associate associates and Laura Taylor with the inter international interior design association.

Great.

You have two minutes each.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Melissa Pacey, and I'm here in strong support of AB 1796. We'd like to thank assembly member Jackson for authoring and appreciate the committee's thoughtful analysis. I am both a licensed architect and am well versed in commercial interior design. I want to be very clear.

Interior design is not just aesthetic work. It is a public safety function. Every decision made inside a building from the materials used on the walls and floors to how corridors are laid out directly impacts whether people can safely exit during an emergency. Fire data consistently shows that interior materials and furnishings are often the primary drivers of how quickly fire spread and how much toxic smoke is produced. In spaces like hospitals, schools, and public buildings, even small design decisions can affect emergency response, infection control, and accessibility.

Poorly designed egress routes, blocked corridors, or improper material selection can turn survivable situations into tragedies. Yet today in California, interior design certification is a voluntary is voluntary regardless of training or understanding of building and fire codes. There is no minimum competency standard. Some have argued that because there's no documented pattern of harm, no change is needed. But the absence of documented harm is not evidence of a strong system.

It reflects a lack of consistent standards and accountability. Public safety policy should be proactive and not reactive. AB 1796 fixes that gap. It establishes a licensure framework that ensures professionals working on commercial interior spaces understand life safety codes, material performance, and safe circulation design. This is not about expanding scope.

It's about ensuring that people already doing this work are qualified and accountable. Other professions that impact public safety are licensed. Interior design should be no different. AB 1796 is a measured responsible step to protect Californians in the spaces they use every day.

If you wrap up, that'd be great.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Good morning, mister chair and members. My name is Laura Taylor, and I'm here today in strong support of AB 1796. California's current system for interior design is outdated and inequitable. For over forty years, professionals in this field have lacked a clear pathway to licensure, limiting their ability to practice independently, compete for contracts, and take ownership of their work. Today, even highly experienced interior designers cannot stamp and sign their own drawings or submit plans for permitting.

Instead, they must rely on other licensed professionals, which increases cost, creates inefficiencies, and limits economic mobility. AB 1796 changes that. Some opponents argue this bill will harm small businesses and create unnecessary barriers. In reality, the current system is what creates those barriers. It forces small independent designers to operate through intermediaries, adding costs and limiting their ability to grow.

This bill creates a clear, fair licensure pathway that allows qualified commercial interior designers to work independently within a defined scope. It reduces complications in the permitting process and improves project timelines, something we've already heard about today, and brings California in line with the majority of the other states that are already regulates this profession. Importantly, this is also an equity issue. Interior design is a diverse profession.

A significant proportion portion of the workforce is women, approximately 78% and with three times as many LGBTQ professionals as in other industries, Many of whom are small business owners working to build and sustain their livelihoods in California's challenging economic environment.

When these professionals are denied a clear pathway to licensure, they're not denied the ability to fully own their work, grow their businesses, and compete fairly. This bill about is about opportunity, agency, and recognizing the value of their work. At its core, a no vote on AB 1796 is a vote against women and LGBTQ professional equity in our broader industry of building professionals. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1796. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support of the bill? Come on up, and I'm just gonna provide a subtle reminder. Please provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill. And that is it.

Hi. I'm Nicolette Rice with One Workplace, an interior designer, and I am in support.

Thank you. Well done. That was a perfect example for everyone else.

Hi. Bonilee Perry with One Workplace, and very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Corinda Wong, Office managing director of Gensler San Jose architecture and design and current president of IIDA Northern California. I strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi. Amanda Humphrey, IIDA SoCal and H. Hendy Associates in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Saren Pierson, One Workplace, Monterey Bay in strong support.

Thank you. Good morning. Bilal Steekee, AIA member and NCARB certified designer, and I support this bill. Thank you very much.

Good morning. I'm Krislyn Lounsbury, senior interior designer with DGA Architects, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Mary Zellner with One Workplace. I'm a senior interior designer, member of IIDA and IDT IDCEC. I'm in strong support of AB 1796.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Amanda Harris. I'm an independent contractor, and a board member for IIDA NorCal, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Richard Price. I am a principal at DGA planning architects and interior designers representing the rest of the principals in the firm throughout California. We strongly and support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sydney Simpkins, and I'm an interior designer at DGA Architects, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Sheri Dempelein with Anthology Lines, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Sally Midgley with Habitec Architecture and Interior Design, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mark Mina. I am an architecture student at Sacramento State University as a member of AIS and student IADA. I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sukhman Sangha, and I'm an interior architecture student at Sacramento State University, and I'm in full support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Monza Perez, and I'm an architectural studies student at Sacramento State University associated with the student IIDA chapter in the AIAAS, and I support.

Thank you.

Hi. Mackenzie Meyer, interior architecture student and in full support of AB 1796.

Thank you.

Hi. Stephanie Smith, with Nocturne Lewis Architects, and I support this bill.

Thanks so much.

Hi. I'm Shannon Dean Schmaze with Steelcase, IIDA professional, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Noelle Sullivan with Anthology Lines. Strong support of the bill.

Thank you.

Lauren Wagner with United Tile and strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Tracy Godby with ALR Associates and IIDA president in Sacramento, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Karen Huang, a student at Sacramento State University, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. Alyssa Wara with DGA Architects, interior designer in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Corinne Smith. I'm an interior designer with DLR Group, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sophia Mong. I'm an interior architecture student at Sac State and current campus center president there as well, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

I'm Casey Calvin. I'm an interior designer at RMW Architecture and Interiors, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ab Newton, interior designer with Sutter Health, and I support.

Thank you.

Hello. This is Holly Zahra, and I'm an associate AIA member, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. I'm Maggie Nakashima. I work at DGA Architects. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andy Lee, senior finance director at DGA Architects and strong support.

Wasn't expecting to see you, Andy. Thank you.

Ryan Sees, Miles Treaster and Associates, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jen Irvin, and I also work with MTA and Associates, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Lisa Bazzano with Ahrefs products, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Roxanne Rose. I'm with HGA. I'm an interior designer, and I strongly support this bill.

Hello, everyone. I'm Suha Alpez, a project designer with DGA architect and AI associate. I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Stephanie Frame. I'm an associate member of the IIDA, the AIA, and I'm an interior designer, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Dominika Seichei. I'm with IIDA and Haworth, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mariana Remis. I'm with RMW. I'm part of IIDA, and I also have an NCID certificate, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you very much.

Hi. My name is Nicolette Loomis. I'm an IIDA member and chair of our merch fashion show, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Lauren Lugliani. I'm an interior designer at Taylor Design, and I support this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. I'm Ashley Hyers, a CID certified interior designer with Taylor Design, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you. Witness in support? No. Tweener? Come on up.

Hi. I'm Laura Zuniga. I'm the executive officer for the California Architects Board. The board hasn't taken a position on the bill yet, but I just wanna be here if there are any questions. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We're gonna invite up the witness the primary witnesses in opposition. And while you come up, I am going to plead with the staff of every member on this committee. We need one committee member to show up to committee to establish a quorum so we can vote on bills. So just grab your boss by the ear lobe, whatever you gotta do, bring him to Room 1100 so we can get a quorum.

Thanks. You have two minutes each.

Awesome. Thank you, mister chair and members. This is Scott Terrell on behalf of the American Institute of Architects California. We're an association of over 11,000 design professionals here in California. I wanna start by being clear.

Our opposition is in no way representative of the value of interior designers. Architects work regularly with interior designers and consider them to be very important parts of the greater design community. Our concerns are really more about the unintended consequences and the structure of this bill, particularly when it comes to clarity, accountability, and public understanding, and safety.

At a high level, AB 1796 recruits a new licensure category and a new vague title for a very small portion of the industry, while still maintaining the existing certification system under CCID, IDC. The result is two separate regulatory pathways and multiple similar titles overseen by different entities with overlapping authority to submit plans on similar types of projects.

This would create real confusion, for consumers, for practitioners, and for enforcement. It becomes unclear who is qualified to do what, how the roles differ, and ultimately, who is responsible when issues arise. This kind of structure would be a departure from how California regulates other design professions. Architects, engineers, and landscape architectures all operate under clear, unified licensure frameworks. This bill would move in the opposite direction towards a more fragmented system with overlapping roles and less clarity.

There's also a fundamental threshold quest question for licensure. What are the what is the problem we are trying to solve and what is the harm to the public under the current system? We've heard anecdotally, for years concerns about plan rejection, but there hasn't been clear data showing a widespread issue tied to public health, safety, and welfare. In fact, recent discussions suggest these instances are relatively rare and have been resolved within the current system.

Before creating a new licensure framework, we think it's important to clearly demonstrate both the risk to the public safety we are trying to solve and why this particular approach is the right solution.

Even setting that aside, there are still significant unanswered questions around implementation. Things like insurability, regulatory oversight, education and examination standards, and alignment with California's complex building code requirements, including seismic considerations unique to California. And when you're dealing with building design where decisions directly impact public health and safety, those issues need to be resolved upfront, not after the fact. This bill would represent a major structural change to California's regulatory system.

And despite the proposal being around since 2023, it hasn't gone through the kind of robust collaborative stakeholder process that a change of this magnitude requires.

If you wrap up, that'd be great.

They remain open to working towards a thoughtful solution. But as written today, the bill introduces more complexity and confusion for the public and the industry than clarity, which is why we've taken a post position. Thank you.

Yes. Absolutely.

Go ahead. Just hit the little mic button.

Oh, there we go. Hello. I'm Catherine Hampton. I am the president of the California Legislative Coalition for Interior Designers, and we oppose this bill. There are only two states, Nevada and Louisiana, that have a practice act such as this one, and they haven't revoked a license in over ten years.

Why? Because there is no consumer harm from interior design. If this bill passes, what will we say to the 7,900 interior designers in California whose livelihoods would be restricted or taken away despite zero evidence of public harm? These are working professionals, small business owners, many are women, many are from diverse communities who have built careers over decades safely, successfully, and without complaint. So what do we tell them?

That their experience doesn't count? Their businesses don't matter? That their only option now is to pay more, do more, and prove themselves all over again for work they've already done safely for years? And today, without any evidence of a real problem, you are being asked to make their work harder, more expensive, and in some cases, impossible to continue. That is a serious decision with real consequences, and it should require real evidence.

That evidence is not here. We respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in opposition to the bill?

Sorry, Mister Chair. I didn't properly anticipate how long that aisle was. Jay Snike on behalf of the California Council of the American Society of Landscape Architects would align ourselves with the comments made by AIAA. We're opposed. Thank you.

Rebecca Marcus representing the consumer pow Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego Law School in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Rose Wiebe, California Council for Interior Design Certification, and we're in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jasmine Vai on behalf of California Building Industry Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Linda Panattoni, past president of CLCID, opposed.

Thank you.

Janice Plasus, current secretary of CLCID, past president of ASID's California Capital Chapter, and current chapter president for the NKBA chapter here in Sacramento, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Eileen Salzinger. I'm a CID under CCIDC for the last twenty three years, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Steve Jones, Sacramento. Also like Eileen, CID for the past thirty years, and I'm opposed. Thank you.

Kristen Maganini, Sacramento, CID, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Lisa Bullard, Sacramento interior designer, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Olga Zdanevich, Sacramento interior designer, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Jacqueline Brown, Sacramento interior designer, and I'm opposed.

Thank you.

Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California, opposed.

Thank you.

Joel Villasenor, NKBA, I oppose. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Ryan Allain with California Retailers. No official position yet. Have concerns, but are working to get feedback through the author and sponsors. Thank you.

Thank you. Bringing it back the colleagues for questions or comments to Assemblymember Pellerin.

Thank you. Thank you, Doctor Jackson. I appreciate your passion behind this issue. I think there's still a lot more work to be done in this space. I don't think I haven't seen an uptick in consumer complaints since the last effort to license interior designers in 2021.

And and I'm concerned about the people who focus exclusively on the aesthetic appeal of indoor spaces that might be folded into this licensure and make it much more difficult for them to do the work that they've been trained to do. So, I'll be voting in support of the bill today because I I trust and hope that you will continue to to work with the opposition to ensure that no one is left behind in this profession.

But just wanna know if you could speak to that concern that I have. Thanks.

Thank you very much, assembly member, and I'll then hand it over to my witnesses. I think what's important is two things. Number one, when you belong to a profession like many of us do on this on this board, Licensure means something, and it is a stamp that says that you have perfected a set of skills, that you are able to be held accountable for your work, and that you are dedicating your life to a certain category of of of skill.

What's important about this bill is that it actually doesn't require people to be licensure. It creates an opportunity for you to have licensure.

And so it's not that you if you choose not to have licensure, sir, you can still go through the normal standard of what it is right now. There's nothing requiring you, so you should not be losing your right to practice. Right? And I think that's that's something that's important. Now all interior designers may choose not to.

They're happy with the system. They're doing about their work. But then there's a certain class of interior designers who are saying, we are ourselves entrepreneurs ourselves, and we want to continue to work for ourselves and with the skill level we've obtained that is now proven through this licensure, we should not have to be then supervised by another profession.

And so I think this actually strikes a pretty good good balance because I think that there are certain internal interior designers who actually says, we actually want this extra level of accountability. And I think it's admirable.

Thank you for the question. I'll just second one point there that the the class of interior designers that this the the group of interior designers this bill is meant to address are those that work in a code impacted environment and interface with authorities having jurisdiction on projects that are required to be permitted by licensed design professionals, which interior designers are not part of right now.

Any interior designer that's doing work that is not required to be done by a licensed design professional, which is primarily aesthetic, but could apply in a lot of different types of work, would continue to practice. If they're having success now practicing that, it's because they're working in that, scope that's not required to be licensed, and they would be able to continue that work unaffected. Thank you.

Assemblymember Addis.

Yeah. Thank you so much. I'm also gonna be supporting the bill and heard you talk a little bit about health and safety factors in terms of fire escape routes and other things. But I wonder if you could elaborate a little bit more around health and safety and how that weaves into the how that would weave into this particular licensure.

Absolutely. And I have some great data and just examples I'd love to share with you all today. Interior space content really makes up the safety in the space, and the content of that space makes up more than 15,000 fires annually in public high risk occupancies. So that's not even including residential design. That's just public spaces like schools, hospitals.

And it results in over two hundred deaths annually, one thousand injuries, and approximately $263,000,000 in direct property damage a year. Something that we find fairly substantial is that the first ignition source is only about 9% of fires, but it's responsible for about half of all fire related deaths and one fifth of injuries, just kind of demonstrating the impact that those materials play in the fire spread and safety in, public environments.

Thank you. And I wanna appreciate what the author said about licensure and professionality and just, how having a process for a license can can be a really important thing. I'm sensitive to what I think some of the opposition's opposition is just around increasing costs and and those kinds of things on the consumer end and just hope that through the process, you continue to work on.

I know you will because I know the author very well, but continue to work on, you know, how we can create that professionality, the licensure, while not hurting consumers and not creating a problem or maybe, you know, it sounds like opposition is saying there was never a problem to begin with. So just if they can, you know, encourage that conversation to continue, particularly to keep costs down even if there is a licensure process that comes out at the end of this.

Hi. I would like to add to this conversation a little bit. I am an interior designer. I'd have my own practice. Up until COVID, I primarily did tenant improvements in high rise buildings with my CCIDC commercial stamp, have pulled many permits.

I have worked at all the big firms, many of the big firms, not all. And I have also been a licensed interior designer in Louisiana. I've been a registered interior designer in Texas, and I am a certified interior designer in California. And the practice that I am able to do is the same.

So I I think there needs to be a little bit more discussion about what it is that this bill is wanting to do and really talk about that, because it's it's not quite as black and white as as it's being proposed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Macedo.

My question's for the opposition. Excuse me. Do you outright oppose licensure, or do you just want there to be a clear path for licensure?

I think that that's a conversation that we're willing to engage in. We think that the solution in this bill is not the correct solution because it only takes part of the industry out and puts them under a separate governing board, and leaves a large part of the industry under a separate governing board, which we think would be incredibly confusing to consumers. We are open to the conversation about what structure might be best.

So you are not opposed to licensure?

Not at this time. We those we think those conversations need to happen, and we need to have a little bit more data on what the problem is so we can figure out which path is the right path to fix.

Well, I know the author as well, and I know that he would be open to hearing how you think it's best to license. But based on my research on this, I do think a license is necessary. My mom's a civil engineer. Her stamp on something means something. It's important for these designers to have a stamp that means something as well.

So if you're not opposed to licensure, I know the author and I know the proponents of the bill are willing to hear you out. So with that, I'm a proud coauthor of this bill, and support your efforts, doctor Jackson. Thank you.

Thank you. We're gonna interrupt to establish a quorum. Madam secretary, please call the roll.

Berman?

Aye. Here.

Johnson? Addis? Ahrens?

Alanis? Banes? Bauer-Kahan? Caloza?

Chen? Elhawary? Hadwick? Haney? Hart? Irwin? Jackson? Lowenthal? Macedo? Nguyen? Pellerin?

Amazing. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Any additional thanks for sticking around. Any additional questions or comments from colleagues?

Seeing none, Doctor Jackson, would you like to close?

Well, this is a classic Jackson bill filled with gray area, filled with a little bit of spice. But I I I I would say this. I mean I mean, the reason why I I'm maybe one of the few members who chose to be on the BNP committee by choice. No offense, Mister Chair. Because I because I prefer-

The aye reco is quickly changing.

Let me finish. Let me finish. Because I belong to a profession that really our ethical standards, are important to our profession as a social worker. Some go through licensor for micro social work. And when we say we are social workers, we expect that comes with a certain set of skills people can rely on, a knowledge base that people can rely on.

And that goes with any profession, whether you're a teacher, whether you are a someone in the medical field, licensure means something. And just like any profession, you want to be able to have a certain level of self determination that comes with that licensure too and autonomy. And in some cases, without this licensure, there's members of the internal design community who wanna have that autonomy that don't have to be supervised or have sort of, you know, be signed away for certain things as well.

And so at the end of the day, we're not at saying that all internal designers have to go through this process, but there are those who want that and want to accept the accountability that comes with that. We understand that this is not something that's been done before in California, but like anything else, I think we should give this a try.

And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, doctor Jackson. I I appreciate your emphasis on how you love to operate in the gray area. When one of your primary witnesses in support said that if we vote no, we're harming professional women, and one of your opposition witnesses said if you vote yes, we're harming professional women. So thanks for that.

I'm I'm not responsible for either talking points.

I would like to thank all the interior designers who came to Sacramento to advocate for their profession today, both for and against the bill. This bill went through the committee's comprehensive Sunrise review process, which is intended to thoroughly vet the pros and cons of any legislation proposing to create a new category of licensed professional. I appreciate the author and sponsor working with the committee in this process and completing the lengthy Sunrise questionnaire.

I wanna emphasize that Sunrising a new state license requires a very high bar to be met, which is why it hasn't happened in California in about a decade.

And I think the sponsors of the bill still have some work to do to demonstrate that protection of the public necessitates imposing that higher level of regulation. But like others have said, I trust the author to continue working with stakeholders and the committee in the development of this proposal. And, so for purposes of today's hearing, I'm happy to support the bill so that those discussions can continue. And I need a motion and a second.

Got a motion in a couple of seconds. Madam secretary, please call the vote.

On AB 1796 Jackson, the motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations. Berman?

Aye.

Berman, aye. Johnson? Johnson, aye. Addis?

Addis, aye. Ahrens? Alanis- or Ahrens?

Ahrens, aye. Alanis? Bains? Bauer-Kahan? Caloza?

Chen? Elhawary? Hadwick? Haney? Hart? Hart, aye. Irwin? Jackson? Jackson, aye. Lowenthal? Macedo? Macedo, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Pellerin? Pellerin, aye.

That bill's on call. We'll leave it open. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I see Assemblymember Ward.

Please wake up, Mister Ward. You have item number two AB 1739. I know you you wake up early and work out at ungodly hours, so we should get you some caffeine. Ready when you are, sir.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. I wanna thank you for the opportunity to present AB1739 for and for the committee's work on this measure. I'll be accepting all the committee's amendments. AB1739 addresses a gap in California law related to sexual exploitation of counseling relationships. Now under existing law, licensed professionals like therapists, psychologists, and substance use counselors are prohibited from engaging in sexual relationships with their patients, and these prohibitions exist because counseling relationships involve a clear imbalance of power and trust.

However, clergy who provide similar therapeutic or counseling services are not explicitly included in the current protections, and AB1739 closes that gap. The bill makes it a crime for the member of the clergy when providing therapeutic services to engage in sexual contact with a current or former counselee within two years of the end of that relationship consistent with existing law for other professions. The consent is not a defense recognizing the inherent power and balance in these situations. And importantly, the bill is narrowly tailored.

It only applies when clergy are providing therapeutic services such as counseling or mental health guidance and not to religious practices more broadly.

It does not impose licensing requirements or regulate the religious doctrine, and the goal is simple, to ensure that individuals seeking guidance during vulnerable moments are protected from exploitation regardless of whether that guidance comes from a licensed professional or a member of the clergy. The aforementioned amendments would actually move the bill from the, the BMP code to the penal code. And the change reflects reflects that clergy are not licensed or regulated by a state entity and that enforcement should occur through the criminal justice system.

The amendments create a new standalone crime while maintaining the same structure, definitions, and penalties as the existing law. And with these changes, we will ensure that the bill is both enforceable and placed in the appropriate section of code.

We recognize concerns raised by opponents regarding the scope and personal autonomy, and we remain committed to continue dialogue on those issues. With me to testify in support of AB1739 are doctor Hermina Nedelescu, a neuroscientist and advocate survivor, and doctor David Bunn. And when the time is, appropriate, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Go ahead. You've got two minutes each.

Chair Berman, Members of the Committee, my name is Doctor Hermina Nedelescu, and I'm here in support of AB1739. My testimony is informed by three roles, my position as a neuroscientist at Scripps Research, my research into clergy perpetrated sexual abuse at the Graduate Theological Union, and my lived experience of grooming and sexual exploitation by Greek Orthodox priest who presented himself to me as a sex counselor, pressuring me to have sex with him before sexually assaulting me at my laboratory.

I also work with Sepping Higher, a San Diego County funded organization where we educate clergy and health professionals in faith based behavioral health settings with emphasis on black and Latino communities. AB1739 addresses a gap in California law. While existing statutes prohibit sexual exploitation and therapeutic relationships, they do not consistently apply when clergy provide counseling.

As a result, we are effectively making an exception only for clergy. These relationships involve trust in a legitimate authority figure and the vulnerability of those they serve, particularly in in communities where clergy are central and influential. AB1739 recognizes that sexual contact within professional relationships is not a matter of consent, but of power and structural inequality. As you are aware, the Milgram experiment demonstrated how individuals respond to perceived legitimate authority. A similar and often even stronger dynamic exists in clergy provided counseling relationships.

This bill reflects established precedent in California law and does not regulate religious belief or practice. It addresses professional conduct. The misuse of therapeutic relationship of sexual exploitation aligning clergy provided counseling relationships with existing professional standards to promote consistency, accountability, and safeguard faith based communities. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Chairman Berman, Members, my name is David Bunn, and I'm a volunteer with SNAP, the survivors network of those abused by priests. I'm also here to represent my son, Trevor, stepson, who was raped by a Catholic priest for two years. My family knows the long term damage that can be caused when clergy betray the trust of of them that they advise. The abuse of power devastates adults and kids, and I can't think of a larger disparity in power, somebody who represents God giving somebody advice.

AB1739 is about accountability and prevention and destruction of lives.

It says that when clergy provide counseling, therapeutic guidance, or mental health support, they must be held to the same standards of other professions where the science and we know very well the problems that arise when counselors abuse that trust. This bill is important because exploitation does not just limit to children. It happens with adults that we just heard. Clergy have the greatest power imbalance. Adults seek clergy during the most vulnerable moments of their lives, grief, divorce, trauma, depression, addiction, loneliness, and a spiritual crisis.

In those moments, clergy hold immense authority over their parishioners. The power imbalance can be manipulated, and then real damage is done. Calling it consensual completely sets aside all that we know about this kind of relationship. It it doesn't recognize the coercion, the dependency, and the exploitation that can occur. Some say religious institutions should handle this internally, but I can tell you from personal experience, that's a complete failure.

When accountability depends only on the institution, too often the survivors are ignored and people are abused. This is one of the most important measures that can take place to prevent this happening in the future. The law must protect people when the institutions fail. Seventeen thirty nine does not target a religion or doctrine. It targets misconduct.

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

And it honors those people who serve with integrity. I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you both, for sharing your your very personal and and difficult experiences. Any additional witnesses you wanna add on in support of the bill?

My name excuse me. My name is Dorothy Small, and I'm a retired registered nurse and also a survivor of clergy sexual abuse with the relationship established during counseling. And I was a victim of childhood sexual abuse. He knew that and exploited that. So I am strongly endorsing this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any primary witnesses in opposition to the bill? Seeing none. Bringing it back to colleagues for questions or comments. I believe it's on member Addis and then doctor Jackson.

Thank you so much. I'd like to move the bill and say thank you to the author for bringing it forward, and I'd love to be a co author. I'm actually astounded. This is not already in law. I also wanna say thank you to both witnesses and David, and I know the lawsuit that your family has experienced.

I'm just so sorry, and the things that you've experienced as well that are just horrendous. And so it's I view this as a form of prevention by putting something in the law that would say this is what we're not supposed to do. I do think this is a strong form of prevention and and having worked in this space with survivors, I think the thing that we often lack is being on the prevention side of things.

So I wanna appreciate the author very much for bringing this forward and and the sponsors.

Thank you. It'd be great to have

Doctor Jackson and then Lowenthal and then Pellerin.

Thank you very much, mister chair. As somebody more, I wanna thank you for bringing this up. I, I, I too was surprised that we didn't already have things on the book to to address this. The two things. Any profession, it's not just clergy, but any profession that there's some clear power dynamic, any profession that engages in a personal health modality health modality, whether it's counseling, whether it is in psychoeducational groups where people are coming together in vulnerable settings.

All of those things are professional standards teach us that we have to have clear boundaries. And while we are helping people, the relationship that it takes to take people through a healing pathway does and in some cases, and there's a very high likelihood that some type of attraction can begin to form because of that vulnerability. And so we have to make sure that we are are clear boundaries and there are clear consequences as well. And on the religious side, there's clear power imbalance.

You know, out before before I came to the legislature, I was a youth minister.

And there's clear power imbalances. There's times where it was just me as the adult and nothing but young people and they're at a youth conference. Right? There's times where there are all kinds of situations that can cause, that if you don't have people with clear boundaries, things can go bad very quickly. Not only that, sometimes people don't realize it doesn't matter, whether you are a leader in the religious community, we're still human.

We are all imperfect. And people, no matter what their title is, will do bad things. And and that should not protect them or give them a sense of invulnerability when they are serving in a religious role. And so I think this is a very important, and we need to make sure that we continue to close these loopholes and crack down because you cannot religious people cannot police themselves. Why?

Because they're human too. And with that, we have to do a lot more to protect people. So thank you very much, and I'll second the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly member Lowenthal?

You just beat me to my second. I was dying to second this bill, but I would like to be added as a co author. I think this is a very important legislation. I also commend the witness for sharing that vulnerability to the state of California for all of our benefit. I align myself with the comments from my colleague from San Luis Obispo.

This is ultimately about prevention, stating the obvious, creating expectations is healthy for everyone, and I'm proud of the author for bringing this forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Pellerin.

Thank you. Thank I wanna chime in as well and thank the author for this very important bill. And thank you to the witnesses sharing your testimony and your personal stories so bravely and courageously and and the other person who added on. I'm so sorry for what you've gone through. I've, centered a lot of my work around survivors, and this is so incredibly important to protect them, especially in vulnerable positions of getting therapeutic services from someone that empowers someone they respect.

And, I too would be honored to be add added as a co author.

Thank you. It'd be great to have you.

Alright. With no other comments, I believe we have a motion and a second, so we will call the roll.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Madam, to clarify

It's okay.

Would you like to close?

I just wanted to thank everybody for their thoughtful comments and for those that wish to be able to join this effort as a co author. I wanted to recognize as well this is brought forward by a constituent as well who recognized this gap in law, who was a survivor, who recognized that, the law didn't currently cover something that was very analogous to, a similar area of law where these kinds of therapeutic services are covered, by these standards.

And so by closing that gap, AB1739 is a common sense solution that's gonna be able to ensure consistency in our laws, and ensure that these long standing protections are also, in effect, in the occasions that a member is seeking therapeutic services, through a member of the clergy. And with that, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Ward. My apologies. And now we will call the roll.

On AB1739 Ward, the motion is do passed as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. Berman, Johnson?

[Roll call]

Great. And next up, we're gonna have agenda item number 13, AB 2497, Johnson. So Amber Johnson, ready when you are.

Thank you, chairman. Making sure my colleagues are okay.

It's debatable.

Okay. Well, good morning, mister chair and coughing committee members. I am here to present AB 2497, a bill to bring California into alignment with the vast majority of other states on physical therapy issues by by modernizing our Physical Therapy Practice Act. I'd like to start by thanking chair Berman and the committee staff, and especially Vince Chi for their tireless work and collaboration on this bill.

I'll be accepting the committee amendments, which delete provisions that would allow physical therapists to order imaging for patients and additional safeguards related to dry needling and direct access. As amended, AB 2497 represents the first modernization of the Physical Therapy Practice Act in over a decade.

And as noted by the committee, analysis is arguably the first major scope of change in more than twenty years. California is currently grappling with a severe shortage of physical therapists with only 57 per 100,000 residents compared to the national average of 72. We are training physical therapists, physical therapy students in our CSU campuses and private universities, but we risk losing them to states like Oregon and Utah where they're actually allowed to use the full range of all their skills.

One of the most significant changes in this bill is removing the forty five day or twelve visit standard for direct access. Currently, patients are forced, to put the recovery on hold, getting a physician sign off just to continue a care plan that is already working.

By removing these limits, AB 2497 would bring California into alignment with 30 other states that provide direct access without a referral. For patients with neurological injuries like a stroke or a spinal cord injury, administrative delays risk jeopardizing a patient's recovery, opening up the possibility to lifelong damage. AB 2497 also addresses the use of dry needling, a common technique for pain and movement evaluation that is already authorized in 47 other states and the District Of Columbia. I wanna be clear.

We have listened, actively listened to the concerns regarding safety and training.

The committee amendments ensure that dry needling will not be implemented until the Department of Consumer Affairs validates competencies and the board establishes specific training and regulations. Furthermore, to ensure patient safety remains the top priority, the bill explicitly requires physical therapists to refer a patient to a physician or specialist if their condition is beyond their scope of training.

We are also proposing a modest increase in the number of assistants a therapist can supervise from two to three, which will help clinics manage high demand and reduce growing wait times for services. In addition, in the spirit of focus progress, we have also agreed to strike the sections regarding imaging and pers perspective authority or prescriptive authority on non opioid and non steroidal anti inflammatory medications to allow for further discussion on those provisions in a future session.

Ultimately, AB 2497 is about making our health care system more efficient and ensuring Californians have the same access to modern care in patients nearly every other state in our country already has.

With me to testify is doctor Chris Reid, the chair of Governmental Affairs Committee for the California Physical Therapy Association, the sponsor of this bill, and doctor Teo De Arnaudas, doctor of physical therapy employed by the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Great. You have two minutes each.

Chair and members of and member of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of AB 2497. My name is doctor Chris Reid. I'm a physical therapist and governor affairs chair for the California Physical Therapy Association. This bill is about modernizing how physical therapy serves patients in today's health care system. It recognizes physical therapists as part of the primary care team for musculoskeletal conditions.

Patients often come to us first with pain or injury, and this bill supports timely evaluation, appropriate management, and referral when needed, improving coordination and outcomes. It strengthens direct access by removing the arbitrary limits that do not reflect clinical decision making. Unrestricted direct access allows care to be guided by patient need rather than fixed timelines, improving continuity, reducing administrative burden, and avoiding unnecessary handoffs.

It enables physical therapists to manage the full episode of care efficiently while still referring when appropriate, leading to better outcomes and more streamlined patient experience. It also establishes clear authority for dry kneeling while pairing it with strong structured training requirements.

The bill ensures that competencies are validated through national standards and that any additional training is defined through regulation, prioritizing both patient safety and clinical effectiveness. Importantly, both unrestricted direct access and dry needling have strong safety track records in other states. Data from state licensing boards and malpractice carriers show no increase in complaints, disciplinary act disciplinary actions, or reports of patient harm in states that have adopted these policies.

Finally, it updates PTA supervision limits, allowing care teams to function more efficiently, improve access to patients, and help address workforce constraints without compromising quality. AB 2497 is a thoughtful, balanced update, that improves access, supports the workforce, and ensures safe, high quality care for Californians.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Alright. Good morning. My name is Taylor Jernellis. And to get out of the way, the thoughts and opinions are my own. They're not reflective of my employer, the Department of Veterans Affairs.

So I'm a physical therapist working in the federal health care system here in California. I'm here today in support of AB 2497, which aims to modernize the California Physical Therapy Practice Act. And so many of these provisions outlined in this bill are already successfully implemented within the federal health care system, including direct access to physical therapist as part of primary care teams and the use of dry needling.

So physical therapists serve as a critical entry point providers for patients with movement, muscle cell conditions. In the federal system, we function as part of a primary care team helping to reduce wait times for physician appointments and improving overall access to care.

Californians receiving care in the federal setting already benefit from this model. One of the biggest challenges in health care access today is access along with cost and efficiency. Currently, many patients in California wait weeks to see a physician for musculoskeletal care. So allowing physical therapists to serve as primary care providers for these conditions enables earlier evaluations, faster treatment, better outcomes, while reducing the strain on the health care system. So this I wanna highlight dry needling.

So in our federal system, we've been utilizing this intervention safely for over ten years. Patients consistently report decreased pain, improved range of motion, increased strength, and most importantly, improved function in their daily lives. So for safety and training perspective, independent researcher of the HUMMER report shown that approximately 88% of knowledge required to competently perform dryneal is already included in physical therapist entry level education. The remaining competencies can be attained through additional formal training.

Many physical therapy programs across the country already incorporate this training into the curriculum.

So join daily is simply just another tool within physical therapy scope or practice similar to manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, and electrical stimulation, use it to address neuromuscular and mescalculations. So as mentioned, California is one of the few states remaining that has not allowed this practice for their physical therapists. But yet California is treating the federal federal system already have access to these benefits.

And I can't say how many times patients that come in to see us in the federal side share stories of them taking their loved ones or their friends across state lines to get care from physical therapist for direct access to dry and healing, I stopped count many years ago. So, I mean, here, this is a support that California allows to provide the same level of care for all patients across the state.

AB 2497 represents opportunity to improve access, reduce costs, and allow physical therapists to deliver safe, effective, and evidence care at the highest level. I respectfully urge your yes vote. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Any additional witnesses who wanna add on in support? And I wanna just remind everybody, I'm gonna remind support side. I'm gonna remind opposition side. Provide your name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the bill.

Thank you very much.

Hello. Thanks for having me today. Jerome Sebengan, board licensed doctor of physical therapy, practicing dry needling in the federal sector in California. I strongly support. Thank you.

Mister chair and members, Monica Miller on behalf of the California Naturopathic Doctors Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Rick Castillo, physical therapist in the federal sector here in California. I've been practicing dry environment for ten years. I strongly support this.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Mark Burner. I was a patient advocate here at VA at Mather for eight years. I had dry needle this morning at 07:00.

Thank I You you supposedly had

So I'm sorry. We're at the point where it's name, organization you're with, if any, and position on the

VA Veterans Administration.

And you support. Thanks.

Thank you. Dylan Yeston

of Physical Therapist, Fresno State.

I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Paul Smith, doctor of physical therapy, Fresno, California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Lauren Leparini, doctor of physical therapy, also in support.

Thank you.

Linda Brown, physical therapist, also in support.

Thank you.

Any additional witnesses in support? Do you have any primary witnesses who wanna come up in opposition to the bill? You you will have two minutes each. Come on up.

Members of the committee, my name is Craig Brandt. I'm here in opposition. I am in opposition because I believe that this bill, the way it's written currently, it's not safe for the public. And I'm part of the public, and so I'm here to tell you my concerns. My background is a few years ago, I had cancer.

I had four states cancer. It was in my throat. It was in my lymph nodes and my neck, and it was in my tonsils. I survived that because of Western medicine. I did chemotherapy, radiation treatments, and surgeries.

After all of that, I started acupuncture. I weighed a hundred and thirty eight pounds. I was very weak. No one thought I would make it. And here I am today because of acupuncture treatments.

I had a licensed acupuncturist treat me and help me. On a Tuesday, the first Tuesday I saw them, I had needles, which are what the dry needling is. It's penetrating the skin. It's penetrating tissue. And I would never have someone who isn't licensed acupuncturist do that now.

Why we would have a physical therapist who doesn't have a background in penetrating tissue is beyond me. This bill the way it is is unsafe. Now I received acupuncture treatment for pain management, boosting my immune system, and for flushing out the remainders of the chemotherapy that was in my hands and my feet so that I wouldn't get neuropathy. And because of acupuncture, I didn't get neuropathy. So would someone who's doing dry needling be able to do all that?

No. And I might point out to you that the people that stood up here and support the dry needling said that they've been practicing it are actually violating a law in California. You have to be an accurate parturist.