SENATE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
WILL COME TO ORDER GOOD
AFTERNOON AND WE'RE HOLDING OUR
COMMITTEE HEARING HERE AT THE O
STREET BUILDING IN ROOM 2100.
I'M ASKING ALL MEMBERS OF OUR
COMMITTEE TO BE PRESENT TODAY
AND COME FORWARD SO THAT WE
COULD ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM AND
BEGIN OUR HEARING. WE HAVE ONE
BILL ON TODAY'S AGENDA. SENATE
BILL 875. WE'LL BE PRESENTED BY
SENATOR GLACIER AND HE IS HERE
READY TO GO. AND BEFORE WE HEAR
THE PRESENTATION OF THE BILL,
LET'S ESTABLISH A QUORUM.
ASSISTANT. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? ALVARADO GIL. HERE I
BROUGHT A GIRL HERE PATROL BOAT.
SO MANY OF OUR MENJIVAR HERE,
WAHAB, WE'LL HAVE YOU ON. THANK
YOU. WE HAVE A QUORUM, SO WE
WILL HEAR FROM OUR ONE AND ONLY
AUTHOR THANK YOU FOR WELCOMING
US INTO THE 2024. SENATOR
GLACIER. WE'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR
BILL. SENATE BILL 875. PLEASE
PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY. THANK
YOU. CHAIR. THANK YOU MEMBERS
FOR BEING HERE TODAY. AND ALLOW
ME TO PRESENT THIS BILL. I WANT
TO THANK THAT YOUR STAFF TO FOR
THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON
IT. LET ME MENTION ON THE ONSET.
YOU KNOW, WHEN I INTRODUCED THIS
BILL IN APRIL IT WAS A
DISCLOSURE BILL. REQUIRED
ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE FOR
REFERRING AGENCIES. AND BASED ON
THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED
FROM THOSE WHO HAD CONCERNS ON
THE BILL, WE ADDED A FEW WEEKS
AGO, A LICENSING REQUIREMENT AND
WE'RE GONNA HEAR FROM SOME THAT
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE OF
THAT. BUT THAT'S THE EVOLUTION
OF THE BILL. UH IT'S PURPOSE IS
TO RAISE THE BAR TO PROTECT
SENIORS. BY REQUIRING REFERRAL
AGENCIES TO GIVE CONSUMERS A
CRUCIAL DISCLOSURE BEFORE
REFERRING THEM TO A RESIDENTIAL
CARE FACILITY. IT CREATES A
LICENSING REQUIREMENT. FOR
REFERRAL AGENCIES, AND IT BANS
CERTAIN PRACTICES. WE CAN ALL
IMAGINE OR NO, AND I KNOW MANY
FOLKS LISTENING. KNOW HOW
STRESSFUL IT CAN BE NAVIGATING
THE PROCESS FOR FINDING A SAFE
SETTING FOR AN AGING FAMILY
MEMBER OR FRIEND. WHO NEEDS SOME
HELP? AND I CERTAINLY HAVE HAD
THAT SAME EXPERIENCE IN MY
FAMILY. REFERRAL AGENCIES.
PROVIDE PLACEMENT OPTIONS. FOR
FAMILIES AND FRIENDS IN THESE
SITUATIONS. DOESN'T MEAN YOU
HAVE TO USE ONE, BUT THEY'RE OUT
THERE TODAY, IRRESPECTIVE OF
THIS BILL THROUGH OUT THERE
TODAY. MAKING REFERRALS. THEIR
GOAL, OF COURSE, IS TO MATCH
WHAT THEY HAVE LEARNED ABOUT
THAT SENIOR THAT'S PERSON WHO
HAS THE NEEDS. AND CONNECTING
THEM WITH RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITIES THAT HAVE ROOMS
OPENED AND SOMETIMES THAT THEY
NEED ROOMS VERY QUICKLY. HOWEVER
THE PROVISION IN OUR LAW TODAY
ONLY MINIMALLY REGULATE.
REFERRAL AGENCIES. THEY DO THAT
BY IMPOSING MISDEMEANORS FOR
REFERRALS TO UNLICENSED
FACILITIES. OR THOSE THAT
PROVIDE THE WRONG LEVEL OF CARE.
I SAID LAST YEAR, I INTRODUCED
THE BILL WITH ONLY A DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT. AND AFTER THE
FEEDBACK WE'VE MADE ADDITIONAL
AMENDMENTS TO IT TO DO THE
FOLLOWING WE CREATE A LICENSE
YOUR STRUCTURE. SO THAT BAD
ACTORS CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
WE'VE PLACED IN EXPLICIT
LANGUAGE. GETTING THAT REFERRAL
AGENCIES HAVE STRICT LIABILITY.
IF THEY REFER TO AN UNFIT
FACILITY. WE'VE ADDED A
REQUIREMENT. THAT REFERRAL
AGENCIES PROVIDE A WRITTEN A
WRITTEN DISCLOSURE. RATHER THAN
JUST A VERBAL DISCLOSURE, AND
WE'VE ADDED A REQUIREMENT THAT
REFERRAL AGENCIES PROVIDE
DISCLOSURE IN THE SAME LANGUAGE.
IN WHICH THE LICENSEE
NEGOTIATED. REFERRAL THE SAME
LANGUAGE. SO IF YOU CALL IN AND
SPANISH AND TALKING SPANISH
ABOUT YOUR NEEDS THAT THE
EXPLOSION REQUIREMENT MUST BE
DONE IN SPANISH. IF YOU CALL AND
HAVE THE CONVERSATION IN
ENGLISH, IT WOULD BE DONE IN
ENGLISH. AS I SAID, RIGHT NOW
LOVING FRIENDS AND FAMILY, IT'S
A WILD WEST. WHEN THEY'RE TRYING
TO FIND A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY FOR THEIR LOVED ONE.
AND THIS BILL ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO
MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
LET ME ADDRESS. TWO POINTS AT
THE OPPOSITION HAVE RAISED FIRST
THIS ISSUE OF OPTING IN PERSONAL
INFORMATION. CALIFORNIA LAW
REQUIRES BUSINESSES, INCLUDING
REFERRAL AGENCIES. TO ALLOW
CONSUMERS THE CHOICE TO STOP THE
SHARING OF THEIR PERSONAL
INFORMATION AND, OF COURSE, IS
KNOWN AS AN OPT OUT REQUIREMENT
THAT IS THE CALIFORNIA STANDARD.
IT'S THE STANDARD THAT'S USED
FOR. BUSINESSES AND OTHER THINGS
IN WHICH WE REGULATE AND LICENSE
AROUND THE STATE. AND IT'S
IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IF YOU'RE
REFERRING TO A FACILITY. MOST
LIKELY THAT UNDER CALIFORNIA
LAW, THEY'RE REFERRING TO IT A
FACILITY THAT HAS AN OPT OUT
PROVISION. BECAUSE THAT'S A
CONSISTENT STANDARD. SECOND
OPPONENTS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS
ABOUT CREATING A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN A REFERRAL AGENCY AND A
PLACEMENT AGENCY. AND THEY CLAIM
THAT IT WOULD CREATE A LOOPHOLE
TO ESCAPE. STRICT SCRUTINY FOR
IMPROPER REFERRALS. AND IT, OF
COURSE, IS NOT ANY OF OUR
INTERESTS TO CREATE ANY
LOOPHOLE. BUT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING AND THE WITNESSES
MAY SPEAK TO THIS IN A FEW
MINUTES. THAT THE CURRENT HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE UH, DEFINES
PLACEMENT AGENCIES AND IT WAS
PLACED WHERE IT WAS INTENDED FOR
THOSE WHO ARE PRINCIPALLY
GOVERNMENT. AGENCIES WHO REFER
PATIENTS TO MEDICAL CARE
FACILITIES, NOT RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITIES. FURTHERMORE THE
LANGUAGE EXPLICITLY IN THE BILL
STATES THAT REFERRAL AGENCIES
MUST COMPLY WITH STRICT
LIABILITY AND CURRENT LAW. I
KNOW THAT HAS BEEN A CRITICISM
AND SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT
HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AS ALWAYS, I
COMMIT TO CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THIS BILL WITH OPPOSITION. TO
CREATE A STRONG LAW THAT
PROTECTS CONSUMERS. WHOEVER. AND
AS WE'VE SEEN FROM THE TERRIFIC
ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE, THIS HAS
BEEN WORKED ON FOR YEARS. OVER
EIGHT YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN
BILLS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME SORT
OF STANDARD HIGHER BAR. AND
REGULATION AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN
MAKE PROGRESS ON THIS BILL. I'M
COMMITTED TO DOING THAT WITH ALL
PARTIES AS WE WILL HEAR DURING
THIS TESTIMONY. SO WITH THAT I
ENCOURAGE YOUR VOTE TODAY WITH
ME TO TESTIFY AND SUPPORTER
MONICA MILLER, REPRESENTING ACT
EIGHT AND CLIFF BERG,
REPRESENTING A PLACE FOR MONTHS.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. GREAT
THANK YOU SO MUCH, SO WE WILL
MOVE ON TO OUR LEAD WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT. WE WILL HEAR TWO
WITNESSES FOR A TOTAL OF TWO
MINUTES EACH PROCEED WHEN READY,
MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS MONICA
MILLER, REPRESENTING ACT EIGHT.
I'M THINKING FOR YOUR TIME TODAY
AND YOU'RE STAFF'S TIME ON WE
REALLY APPRECIATE IT ON THIS
BILL, AS THE SENATOR SAID, HAS
BEEN ON. IT'S BEEN SOMETHING
THAT WE THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED IN
THE LEGISLATURE SINCE 2015, AND
IN THAT TIME, THERE'S BEEN NO
PROTECTIONS FOR OUR FAMILIES. MY
ORGANIZATION THAT I REPRESENT IS
CALLED ACT EIGHT. AND THAT IS,
UM THAT'S AN ORGANIZATION THAT
IS DESIGNED AND INTENDED TO
PROTECT FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS
WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO PLACE
LOVED ONES. IN THESE TYPES OF
FACILITIES BECAUSE IF YOU
HAVEN'T GONE AROUND AND TOWARDS
SOME OF THESE FACILITIES OR HAD
THE UNFORTUNATE EXPERIENCE OF
HAVING A PLACE A LOVED ONE. IT
IS VERY CHALLENGING WOULD BE AN
UNDERSTATEMENT. YOU'RE IN
COMPLETE STRESS. I PERSONALLY
HAVE A LIVED EXPERIENCE OF
HAVING TO DO WITH MY MOTHER IN
LAW COMPLETE STRESS BEING
DISCHARGED FROM HOSPITAL
FACILITY. YOU ARE IN A ROOM WITH
THE SOCIAL WORKER WITH A
PHOTOCOPY OF A PHOTOCOPY OF A
PHOTOCOPY. AND YOU'RE TRYING TO
MAKE THIS DECISION OF WHERE DO
WE TAKE OUR LOVED 12 WITH
NOWHERE TO TURN AND MY HUSBAND
AND I WERE JUST COMPLETELY THE
STRESS LEVEL IS UNBELIEVABLE.
BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE THE BEST
DECISION FOR YOUR LOVED ONE. SO
BY WORKING WITH REFERRAL AGENCY
YOU CAN YOU CAN GO THROUGH. SHE
HAS A CATCH. HE DOESN'T HAVE A
MEDICAL ISSUE, BUT SHE DOES HAVE
SOME MEMORY LOSS ISSUES,
ETCETERA, SO YOU CAN RUN THROUGH
WHAT WORKS FOR MY FAMILY AND MY
LOVED ONE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT
THIS BILL PUTS THE PROTECTIONS
IN THERE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE
PROTECTED AS A CONSUMER THAT THE
FAMILIES ARE PROTECTED THAT
THEY'RE NOT A TOWARDS SOME OF
THESE FACILITIES. I CAN TELL
YOU. SOME OF THEM WERE FANTASTIC
. AND SOME OF THEM I WOULDN'T
PUT MY WORST ENEMY IN. I WALKED
IN AND THOUGHT. OH, DEAR LORD,
WHO? HOW HOW ARE THESE PEOPLE
AROUND? AND SO THIS BILL IS
INTENDED TO PROTECT OUR LOVED
ONES. MAKE SURE THAT WHEN
FAMILIES ARE MAKING THESE
DECISIONS THAT THEY HAVE ALL OF
THE PROTECTIONS THAT ARE NEEDED
IN PLACE THAT DO NOT CURRENTLY
EXIST AS A SENATOR MENTIONED WE
HAVE WORKED FOR MANY YEARS, BUT
MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LAST
YEAR PLUS WITH THE OPPOSITION IN
AN EFFORT TO TRY AND REACH
CONSENSUS, SOME AGREEMENTS AND
WHILE WE MAY NOT AGREE ON
EVERYTHING, QUITE FRANKLY, AND
THERE'S STILL SOME OUTSTANDING
ISSUES AND SOME QUESTIONS, WE
ARE COMMITTED TO CONTINUING TO
WORK WITH THAT SENATOR KYL
BLAZERS CONTINUING TO WORK ON
THAT WE JUST WANT TO SEE THIS
BILL GET THROUGH TODAY. WE STILL
HAVE ANOTHER POLICY COMMITTEE
HEARING THIS WEEK. SENATE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AS YOU'RE
AWARE, UM, SO WE ARE HOPEFUL
THAT GIVEN ALL OF THE HOURS AND
HOURS AND HOURS THAT WE HAVE PUT
IN TALKING WITH THE OPPONENTS
TALKING WITH THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF AGING, TALKING
WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE ON
TRYING TO GET THIS LEGISLATION
THROUGH TRYING TO MAKE IT MAKE
SENSE IN THE GOVERNOR'S VETO OF
THE BILL LAST YEAR, THE RUBIO
LEGISLATION HE SPECIFICALLY
ASKED US TO WORK WITH THE
COORDINATING CARE COUNCIL. ELDER
JUSTICE AND WE'VE DONE THAT
WE'VE REACHED OUT AND WE'VE HAD
SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH ADAM
WILLOUGHBY IN HIS TEAM AGAIN
FROM A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
STANDPOINT FROM DEPARTMENT OF
AGING, BUT WE HAVE REALLY WORKED
ON ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE
OPPONENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS
BILL IS NEEDED AND NECESSARY
BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED SINCE
2015 WE'VE THIS BILL HAS BEEN
OUT THERE. AND THERE'S BEEN NO
PROTECTIONS FOR OUR FAMILY SINCE
THEN, WHICH IS WHY, AND I THINK
I'M BEING TOLD TO WRAP UP SO I'M
FOR THESE REASONS WE URGE ARRIVE
OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR MOVE TO OUR NEXT
WITNESS, AND YOU'LL HAVE TWO
MINUTES. BERGDAHL GOVER
GOVERNMENTAL ADVOCATES HERE IN
BEHALF. HERE WE GO. ALRIGHT.
CLIFF BURGUNDY HAVE WITH
GOVERNMENTAL ADVOCATES HERE ON
BEHALF OF PLACE FOR MOM. UM
PLEASED TO CO SPONSOR THE BILL
WITH ACT DATE. I MEAN, YOU MAY
SAY, HEY, WHY IS INDUSTRY
SPONSORING A BILL WHERE CO
SPONSORING THIS BILL WITH AC
DATE? MONICA WAS WALKING THE
HALLWAYS LOOKING FOR AN AUTHOR
AND I BUMPED INTO HER, AND WE
BASICALLY SAT DOWN AND
NEGOTIATED ABILITY. BEEN
INTRODUCED MULTIPLE TIMES. IT'S
BEEN A DIFFICULT PROCESS, BUT
THE REALITY IS FIRST OFF
REFERRAL AGENCIES PROVIDE A
VITAL SERVICE FOR CALIFORNIA
FAMILIES AND LOCATING THE RIGHT
FACILITY. THEIR TREMENDOUS
RESOURCE. I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY I
GOT SOME COURSES ABOUT BEING A
PARENT MYSELF WHEN I WAS YOUNGER
AND TWO CLASSES AND GOT SOME
LESSONS IN BEING A PARENT, BUT
THERE'S NOTHING COURSES IN HIGH
SCHOOL COLLEGE THAT PREPARE YOU
FOR DEALING WITH. HOW DO YOU
DEAL WITH AN OLDER RELATIVE WHO
NEEDS EXTENDED CARE? YOU OFTEN
WIND UP WITH THAT RELATIVE IN AN
EMERGENCY ROOM CALL CALL FROM A
DOCTOR SAYING, HEY, YOU NEED TO
FIND A PLACE FOR IT THAT CAN
PROVIDE SOME SUPPORT FOR YOUR
MOM. UNCLE PHIL IN THE BLANK.
UM, AND REFERRAL AGENCIES DO
THAT AND KEPT THE REALITY IS
CALIFORNIA HAS VERY LITTLE LAW
IN THE BOOKS. GOVERNING REFERRAL
AGENCIES. THERE'S BASICALLY TWO
PROVISIONS IN LAW THAT COVER
PLACEMENT AGENCIES. THEY SAY.
YOU CAN'T REFER TO AN UNLICENSED
FACILITY AND YOU CAN'T REFER TO
IF FACILITY THAT WE PROVIDED AN
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF MEDICAL
CARE. OTHER THAN THAT THERE'S
BEEN NO CODE. SO SENATOR MENDOZA
IN TRIBUTE TO BILL IN 2015,
MULTIPLE GIRLS HELD
APPROPRIATIONS MULTIPLE BILLS
VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR. THIS
BILL STRIKES THE RIGHT BALANCE
BETWEEN STRONG CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS AND THE AMENDMENTS
THAT WERE ADDED THIS WEEK. WE'RE
ALL IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCERNS
THAT WE HEARD ABOUT
STRENGTHENING THE BILL AND
ENHANCING CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.
AS THE GOVERNOR ASKED FOR, UM,
BUT THE BILL STRIKES THE RIGHT
BALANCE BECAUSE YOU NEED STRONG
CONSUMER PROTECTIONS. BUT YOU
NEED TO PROTECT THE PROCESS,
WHICH IS ALSO OFTEN A TIMELY
PROCESS AND A CRITICAL TIME FOR
A FAMILY. THIS BILL IS THINKS
THE SENATOR GLAZER AND HIS STAFF
, I THINK STRIKES THE RIGHT
BALANCE. BUT WILL YOU CONTINUE
TO WORK ON IT AND CONTINUE TO
WORK WITH ALL THE PARTIES TO
STRENGTHEN THE BILL AND GET THE
BEST POSSIBLE PRODUCT TO THE
GOVERNOR? BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG
TIME IN CALIFORNIA STILL HAS NO
LAW IN THIS AREA. MOVING THIS
BILL TODAY IS EXTREMELY
IMPORTANT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING
THIS SESSION. UM SO IT URGE YOUR
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO
MUCH. ALRIGHT, WE'RE WE ARE
GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TO PUBLIC
COMMENT. ANYONE WISHING TO
EXPRESS THE SUPPORT FOR THIS
BILL, PLEASE APPROACH THE
MICROPHONE. LAST YOUR NAME
AFFILIATION AND YOUR POSITION
ONLY PLEASE. HEATHER HARRISON
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ASSISTED
LIVING ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. HI ROXANNE. GOLD.
SORRY I'M SITTING UP HERE AS A
PINCH HITTER BECAUSE I DIDN'T
KNOW IF CLIFF WAS GOING TO MAKE
IT SO I WAS GOING TO DO SOME OF
THE PRIMARY TESTIMONY. I'M
REPRESENTING SIX BEDS, WHICH IS
A SMALL SIX BETTER, FEWER
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR
THE ELDERLY AND DEVELOPMENTALLY
DISABLED. MORE AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. RIGHT?
ANYBODY ELSE, ALL RIGHT. WE ARE
NOW GOING TO MOVE ON TO LEAD
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR
TWO WITNESSES FOR A TOTAL OF TWO
MINUTES EACH, AND WE HAVE TO, UM
BLANCA CASTRO WITH THE OFFICE OF
STATE LONG TERM CARE OMBUDSMAN.
AND SO WAIT. DID I PRONOUNCE
THAT CORRECTLY? OH OKAY. THANK
YOU. YOU'LL INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
ARE YOU STILL WITH THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS, CALIFORNIA?
ALRIGHT BLANCA WILL GO FOR IT.
OKAY. PROCEED WHEN YOU'RE READY.
BLUE. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD
AFTERNOON, CHAIRWOMAN. MY NAME
IS BLANCA CASTRO, UM, AND
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE HUMAN
SERVICES COMMITTEE. WE'RE REALLY
HAPPY TO BE HERE TODAY. FIRST OF
ALL, UM, I DO WANT TO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE SENATOR'S STAFF
FOR WORKING WITH US, BUT UM I'M
REPRESENTING THE 320,000
RESIDENTS THAT ON ANY GIVEN DAY
OR IN A LONG TERM CARE FACILITY.
WE HAVE ABOUT 7479 RESIDENTIAL
CARE FACILITIES IN CALIFORNIA,
AND THAT NUMBER IS GROWING. IN
SIX YEARS. THERE WILL BE OVER 10
MILLION PEOPLE IN THIS $40
MILLION FOR 40 MILLION
POPULATION STATE THAT ARE 60
OVER, SO THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S VERY MUCH PART OF OUR
POPULATION AND PART OF OUR
COMMUNITY. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME
JUST SAY THAT THIS IS A FLAWED
BILL. IT HAS BEEN CARRIED BY THE
INDUSTRY FOR EIGHT YEARS. WHAT
THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS PROTECT
THEMSELVES FROM ACCOUNTABILITY
AND LIABILITY. I SEE FIRSTHAND
AND WE HAD 40,000 COMPLAINTS
JUST LAST YEAR. TOP THREE
COMPLAINTS WHEN THERE IS A
PERSON IN A RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY THAT IS EITHER
INVOLUNTARILY EVICTED BECAUSE
THEY ARE IN A PLACE THAT IS NOT
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CARE FOR
THEM. WE ARE SEEING MORE COMPLEX
CASES PEOPLE WITH TRAUMATIC
BRAIN DISORDERS, PEOPLE WITH
DEMENTIA RELATED DISEASES,
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND A NUMBER
OF OTHER CHRONIC CONDITIONS THAT
ARE SEEKING ASSISTANCE WITH
FIGHTING QUALITY CARE. AND I'M
NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT POINT IT
IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. ONE OF
THE MOST DANGEROUS PROVISION
WITHIN THIS BILL. AND WE ARE
GLAD TO SEE THAT THEY FINALLY
DECIDED TO REGULATE THEMSELVES
AND BE LICENSED. FIRST OF ALL.
THEY HAVE INSERTED IN THIS BILL
A SECTION 14 09.4, THE PRECISELY
STATES. THE STATE LAW DOES NOT
REQUIRE THAT WE DETERMINE
WHETHER FACILITIES TO WHICH WE
REFER YOU ARE SUITABLE FOR YOU.
BASED UPON YOUR CARES SOCIAL
NEEDS MY FINANCIAL MEANS AND
LOCATION. OH, OKAY. I THOUGHT
THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE HELPING ME
DO BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO INTO ONTO
THEIR SOME OF THE OKAY ONTO THE
ONLINE WEBSITES, YOU HAVE TO
ENTER INFORMATION WHERE YOU LIVE
. HOW MUCH MONEY YOU ARE WILLING
TO PAY? WHAT YOUR CONDITION IS
WHERE YOU'RE LOCATED. LAST I
WILL SAY THERE ARE BILLS. THERE
ARE STATUTES ALREADY HERE TO
PROTECT THE CONSUMERS. HEALTH
AND SAFETY CODE, 1569 47 HAS
BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS BILL THAT
IS PRECISELY IN PLACE IN
CALIFORNIA AND IT ALREADY EXIST
AND IT IS STATED HERE TO PROTECT
PEOPLE. ALL WE WANT IS THAT THE
REFERRAL AND PLACEMENT AGENCIES
ARE INCLUDED IN THIS WHEN THEY
TELL YOU THEY ARE ONLY REFERRAL
AGENCIES. I WANT TO DISABUSE YOU
OF THAT. THEY ARE PLACEMENT
AGENCIES. THEY GET PAID TO GET
TO REFER YOU ONLY TWO FACILITIES
THAT ARE CONTRACTED WITH THEM,
SO IT'S LIMITED AND THEY GET
PAID. ONCE YOU SIGN THE
ADMISSION AGREEMENT TO BE
ENROLLED IN TO BE ADMITTED TO
THAT FACILITY, SO I'M URGING YOU
. PLEASE VOTE. NO IT IS A FLAWED
BILL, AND IT IS NOT READY. THANK
YOU. I DON'T NEXT WITNESS
WHEREVER YOU INTRODUCED YOURSELF
AS WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND
MEMBERS YES. MAIN PILL OUT ON
BEHALF OF JUSTICE AND AGING. AND
HERE RESPECTFULLY IN OPPOSITION
TO SB 875 JUSTICE AND AGING
ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF LOW
INCOME OLDER ADULTS. UM AND
WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH
THE SENATOR'S STAFF AND THE
OPPOSITION AS THEY NOTED FOR A
WHILE NOW, AND UNFORTUNATELY
WE'RE STILL HERE IN OPPOSITION.
UM AS OUTLINED IN OUR LETTER
ESTIMATE, 75. WE BELIEVE STILL
POTENTIALLY HARMS OLDER ADULTS
SEEKING THESE SERVICES. UM.
INSTEAD OF PROTECTING CONSUMERS.
THIS BILL ALLOWS REFERRAL
AGENCIES TO ESCAPE THE CURRENT
STRICT LIABILITY FOR IMPROPER
REFERRALS. IT ALLOWS AGENCIES TO
OPT OUT OF THE BILLS OAN
REQUIREMENTS THAT THE REFERRALS
BE SUITABLE TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
THE CONSUMER AS BLANCA JUST, UH
EXPLAINED PROPOSES AN EXPENSIVE
LICENSURE STRUCTURE THAT
PROVIDES NO OVERSIGHT SETS NO
SERVICE STANDARDS AND PROVIDES
NO PROTECTIONS TO CONSUMERS FOR
BAD ACTORS. IN FACT, THE ONLY
REQUIREMENT FOR A LICENSE UNDER
THE SCHEME IS FOR AGENCIES TO
PROVIDE MINIMAL DISCLOSURE,
CONTACT. ORGANIZATIONAL AND
FEAR, SCHEDULE INFORMATION AND
FAILS TO REQUIRE THAT AGENCIES
BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN THE
STATE. IT PUTS CONSUMERS AT RISK
BY REQUIRING THEM TO OPT OUT OF
THE SALE OF THEIR PERSONAL DATA
TO THIRD PARTIES, INSTEAD OF
GIVING THEM CONTROL OVER THEIR
USE OF THEIR DATA INCLUDES
INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT WHEN
REFERRAL AGENCIES HAVE A
FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE
FACILITY THAT THEY REFER TO AND
THIS WAS A KEY POINT IN THE
GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE OF THE
PREVIOUS SENATOR
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S RUBIO BILL, UM,
BECAUSE THE BILL DOESN'T REQUIRE
AGENCIES TO DISCLOSE WHETHER
AGENCIES WITHHOLD NON
COMPENSATING REFERRALS FROM
CONSUMERS. CONSUMERS CAN BE
EASILY MISLED INTO BELIEVING
THAT THEY'RE RECEIVING A NEUTRAL
, WELL INFORMED REFERRAL RATHER
THAN A FINANCIALLY MOTIVATED
ONE. FOR THESE REASONS, WE
STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 875. THANK
YOU. OKAY THANK YOU SO MUCH TO
BOTH OF YOU. WE WILL MOVE
FORWARD TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
WISHING TO EXPRESS OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL, PLEASE COME FORWARD
TO THE MICROPHONE. RIGHT NONE.
WE WILL NOW BRING OUR DISCUSSION
OVER TO OUR MEMBERS, MEMBERS,
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WE'LL
START WITH MINKA BAR THEN
SENATOR WAHAB THEN SENATOR KOBO.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR A COUPLE
OF QUESTIONS. UM. SENATOR YOUR
YOUR WITNESSES TALKED ABOUT THAT
IT WOULD PROVIDE THE PROTECTIONS
. CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT
MORE? WHAT THE PROTECTION TO THE
CONSUMERS ARE. THERE'S NO
CURRENT. UNDER CURRENT LAW.
THERE'S NO DISCLOSURE
REQUIREMENT OF REFERRALS GO ON
EVERY DAY YESTERDAY TODAY
TOMORROW, AND THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DISCLOSE
COMPENSATION THEY'RE GETTING
FROM THE AGENCIES IN WHICH
THEY'RE REFERRING, SO THIS SETS
A BRAND NEW STANDARD THAT'S NOT
IN PLACE TODAY. CONSUMER UNDER,
UM SB 875 WOULD THEN BE
DISCLOSED THAT THEIR REFERRAL
COMES OFF OF A COMMISSION AND
THAT BUILD SPECIFICALLY SAYS
THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT IN
WRITING. THAT'S NOT CURRENT LAW
TODAY, AND WILL THE OVERSIGHT
THEN FALL UNDER CDSS? OR DOES IT
CURRENTLY FALL UNDER ANY
OVERSIGHT UNDER THERE'S A
LICENSING SCHEME THAT'S CREATED
IN THE BILL. WE'RE PUBLICATIONS
HE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
ENSURING THAT COMPLIANCE WITH
THAT. AND WOULD IT BE GOING IN
PERSON TO INSPECT THESE
FACILITIES? I DON'T BELIEVE
THAT'S A REQUIREMENT IN THE BILL
TO REMEMBER. IT'S NOT A FACILITY
LIKE A RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY
. IT'S AN OFFICE. OKAY, IT'S NOT
MEDICAL FACILITY. IT'S JUST
REFERRAL AGENCY AS IF YOU HAD
ATTENDED PROTECTION AGENCY. UH
YOU KNOW, ADVISING SOMEONE
INTENDED MATTERS. IT'S NOT A
APARTMENT OR JUST SIMPLY THEIR
OFFICE. LASTLY I KNOW YOU KNOW,
AS A CONSUMER, I'D LIKE TO KNOW
WHICH ONE IS THE BEST, UM,
SUITABLE LOCATION FOR MY LOVED
ONE. IN ONE OF THE GOVERNOR'S
VETO. HE MENTIONED THAT 1
MILLION WAS PUT ASIDE TO
SHOWCASE A FREE WEBSITE.
CALIFORNIA LONG TERM CARE
COMPARE WORK, CONSUMER CAN GO
AND FOR FREE AND GET A REFERRAL
THAT BEST SUITS THEIR NEEDS.
WOULDN'T THAT IN ITSELF BE A
PROTECTION TO CONSUMERS WHERE
THEY CAN GO? THEY DON'T HAVE TO
USE ANY OTHER REFERRAL AGENCY.
WOULDN'T WE? THEN SAY WE'RE
COMFORTABLE WITH THIS? UM I
DON'T THINK WE'RE AT, UH WE HAVE
A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN THE
GOVERNORS GOVERNOR NUESTRAS VIEW
IN THIS CASE. AND THAT THAT'S A
GOOD ENHANCEMENT. THERE'S NO
OBJECTION TO THAT. IT'S NOT
REALLY SOLVING THE WHOLE
PROBLEM. I THINK WHY INDUSTRY IS
ENGAGED IN THIS. CONVERSATION IS
BECAUSE THERE ARE BAD APPLES IN
THIS SPACE. AND THEY'RE TRYING
TO AT LEAST CREATE A STANDARD
THAT'S ABOVE THE FLOOR FOR HOW
THE WORK IS DONE IN TERMS OF
DISCLOSURES. AND THE REST AND SO
IT WILL STILL BE MY BURDEN OR
OBLIGATION. TO BE ALIGNED WITH
GOVERNOR NEWSOM AND HIS DESIRE
AND MY DESIRE TO MAKE SURE WE
HAVE ADEQUATE CONSUMER
PROTECTION. SO THE GOVERNOR IN
HIS VETO MESSAGE NOT ONLY TALKED
ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT
HE'S SETTING ASIDE, BUT HIS
WILLINGNESS TO CONTINUE TO WORK
WITH THE AUTHOR IN THIS CASE, IT
WAS AN AUTHOR OF A PREVIOUS
BILL. ON ON THE CONSUMER
PROTECTIONS HE THINKS WOULD
CREATE THE RIGHT LEVEL OF
STANDARDS THAT HE WOULD BE MORE
COMFORTABLE WITH, AND THAT IS A
BURDEN THAT I SHARE. IF THIS
BUILDING MOVES FORWARD TODAY
CONTINUE TO WORK WITH OPPOSITION
AND MEMBERS. FIRST POLICY
HEARING, BUT CERTAINLY THE
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE MAKE MEAT THAT WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THAT TEST
AND WE WILL BEAT THAT TEST.
THANK YOU, SENATOR MENJIVAR,
SENATOR WAHAB. THANK YOU, UM.
SENATOR I AGREE WITH YOU THAT
OUR CARE FACILITIES ARE
EXTREMELY QUESTIONABLE AND EVEN
THE REFERRAL PROCESS AND, UM YOU
KNOW, I HAVE AGING FAMILY
MEMBERS. JUST THIS PAST COUPLE
WEEKS. WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE
OUT, YOU KNOW. WHAT ARE OPTIONS
FOR MORE IN DEPTH CARE, LONG
TERM CARE AND. YOU KNOW,
FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING RIGHT?
NOT ONLY WITH COSTS, BUT THEN
ALSO, YOU KNOW WHAT ARE THE
OPTIONS AVAILABLE? IT'S NOT VERY
CLEAR TO INDIVIDUALS, BUT I DID
YOU KNOW. I KNOW THAT THIS HAS
BEEN ATTEMPTED AND I DO JUST
WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. WHAT ONE OF
THE WITNESSES IN OPPOSITION HAS
STATED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT
SECTION 14 09.4. DID YOU HAVE
ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? BECAUSE
WHEN IT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE
STATE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT
WE DETERMINE WHETHER FACILITIES
TO WHICH WE REFER YOU ARE
SUITABLE FOR YOUR BASED UPON
YOUR CARE AND YOUR SOCIAL NEEDS
FINANCIAL MEANS AND LOCATION.
THE LIST PROVIDED IS NOT
COMPREHENSIVE, OF ALL OPTIONS
AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITY IN YOUR AREA. NOW THE
CONCERN IS THAT THIS IS PART OF
THE BILL. UM THAT'S THAT'S ONE
CONCERN THAT I HAVE, AND THE
NUMBER TWO IS THE FACT THAT
GRANTED I UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW,
IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CALIFORNIA.
MAYBE THERE'S MORE RURAL NOUS,
RIGHT? IT'S NOT GONNA BE IN THE
SAME CITY PER SE. MAYBE IT'S
GONNA BE A CITY TO CITIES, THREE
CITIES OVER. UM, BUT FINANCIAL
MEANS IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT.
WE HAVE A GROWING SENIOR
POPULATION. UM SOME REFER TO IT
AND I LIKE THIS TERM SILVER
TSUNAMI THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN
AND IT IS MY GENERATION THAT
REALLY HAS TO, UH, BALANCE, YOU
KNOW, TAKING CARE OF THEIR
ELDERS AND THEIR LOVED ONES AS
WELL AS POTENTIALLY STARTING A
FAMILY, AND I'M GONNA BE HONEST
STUDENT LOAN DEBT, RIGHT? UM SO
WHAT IS, YOU KNOW POTENTIALLY
YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS AND THEN
ALSO WHY IS IT IN THE BILL? VERY
GOOD. UM SO THAT LANGUAGE ABOUT
DISCLOSURE WHAT WE WERE
SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO REMOVE
THAT BY THE SENATE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE, WHICH HERE'S THE BILL
NEXT AND THEY, THEY SAID THE
CHAIR SAID THAT THE STAFF IT
FEELS THAT SORT OF OBLIGATION
UNDER CURRENT LAW, AND IT'S
REPETITIVE, DUPLICATIVE. I DON'T
HAVE ANY INTEREST IN REMOVING
THAT OBLIGATION, BUT WAS TOLD
THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE WERE
PROPOSING IN ARBIL AND THAT
SECTION WAS NOT THE RIGHT THING
TO DO TO ADVANCE THAT SAME
PURPOSE THAT YOU HAVE THAT I
HAVE THAT WE ARE WE ALL HAVE. SO
YOU HAVE MY ASSURANCE THAT THOSE
REQUIREMENTS AND THAT LANGUAGE
OR SOMETHING THAT I CERTAINLY
WANT TO SEE UH, IN EFFECT, AND
I'M TOLD IT'S AFFECTING CURRENT
LAW TODAY, BUT IF THERE'S ANY
CONCERN ABOUT THAT, I'M HAPPY TO
EARNESTLY WORK TO ENSURE THAT
THAT STANDARD IS IN PLACE.
ABSOLUTELY I'LL BE HONEST WITH
YOU. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED
ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE, RIGHT? JUST
BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW I REALLY
THINK THAT A LOT OF THE CARE
FACILITIES AREN'T EVEN RIGHT NOW
AT THIS TIME BUILT FOR
COMMUNITIES THAT I COME FROM,
YOU KNOW IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES,
LOWER INCOME COMMUNITIES, THINGS
LIKE THAT. SO I WILL BE
ABSTAINING. I DO SUPPORT THE
EFFORT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT
INTO IT, BUT I WILL BE
ABSTAINING UNTIL YOU KNOW MORE
THINGS ARE RESOLVED IN THAT
REGARD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU,
SENATOR WAHAB, SENATOR KOBACH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MADAM CHAIR. MY QUESTION, UH,
WOULD BE THE FOLLOWING AND I DO.
I DO HAVE TO PREVIOUS MY
QUESTION WITH THE FACT THAT, UM
IT IS CONCERNING FOR ME. KNOWING
COMING FROM REAL ESTATE AND
KNOWING HOW YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT
SUPPOSED TO GET REFERRALS FOR
SENDING A REFERRING PEOPLE TO
SAY LENDERS COMING FROM HOUSING
AND REAL ESTATE. UM I HAVE AN
ISSUE OR ALWAYS AN ISSUE HAVE A
CONCERN ABOUT HAVING ONLY
INSTITUTIONS OR FACILITIES THAT
WILL PAY A REFERRAL FEE TO BE
WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ONLY
FACILITY IS BEING PROVIDED. UM
AS A. A FACILITY TO BE REFERRED
TO, UM AND THAT SENSOR, IN
ESSENCE, THAT THAT'S ONE OF THE
CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. BUT THE
FOLLOWING QUESTION IS, UM THAT I
HAVE FOR YOU IS WHO DETERMINES
WHETHER A FACILITY WILL PROVIDE
AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CARE
UNDER CURRENT STATE LAW. AND
DOES THIS PERSON STAFF OR
ENTITY? DO THEY NEED TO HAVE ANY
MEDICAL BACKGROUND? IN ORDER TO
MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT. WELL FIRST
THE REQUIREMENT IN LAW THAT THIS
BILL DOESN'T CHANGE IS THAT, UH
YOU HAVE TO REFER TO A LICENSED
FACILITY LICENSED BY THE STATE.
SO AND THIS, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW
AGAIN. THE WILD WEST OF WHAT
WE'RE FACING TODAY IS THERE IS
NO REGULATION IN THIS SPACE AT
ALL. SO THERE IS NO STANDARD
THIS BILL TRIES TO SET A
STANDARD TO HOW THAT WORK IS
DONE. SO AND THEY'RE NOT MEDICAL
FACILITIES PER SE. IT'S NOT A
FACILITY TO TAKE CARE OF THE
HEALTH. THAT COULD BE A FACILITY
THAT MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THREE
BREXITEER MEALS A DAY. THEY TAKE
CARE OF THEIR HYGIENE. THESE ARE
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES. NOT
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, SO
JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S
CLARIFIED HERE. OKAY? TRYING TO
FIND THE LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S A
JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE, JUST A
MOMENT. SENATOR COBO WAS YOUR
QUESTION AND ANSWER. WOULD YOU
LIKE TO DIRECT THE QUESTION
TOWARDS ANY MEMBERS OF WHAT IS
THIS CONTINUE WITH BECAUSE I
THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF
POINTS THAT YOU FOLKS MADE IN
STATUTE THAT WERE MODIFIED SO I
BELIEVE THAT MAY BE RELATED TO
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE RIGHT
NOW. PEOPLE TO MY MEDICARE
THROUGH THE MET THROUGH THE
CHAIR WOULD LOVE TO HEAR. UM,
YOU ANSWER ON THAT OR YOUR
COMMENT. SO UM, CURRENTLY THERE
ARE REFERRAL. AGENCIES AND
PLACEMENT AGENCIES. THEY ARE NOT
LICENSED BY THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. BUT OUR CFCS OR
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES FOR
THE ELDERLY ARE ARE ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITIES. THEY ALL FALL
UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. SO A
PLACE FOR MOM AND SOME OF THE
PLACES THAT ACTUALLY DO HAVE
BRICK AND MORTAR, THEIR
NAVIGATORS, THEIR ELDER CARE
NAVIGATORS, WHO WILL GO AND FROM
A TO Z WILL HELP SOMEBODY NOT
ONLY FIND A PLACE BUT WILL HELP
THEM WITH THE ASSESSMENT AND TO
DETERMINE WHAT THEY CAN AFFORD
AND WHERE THEY WANT TO BE
PLACED. SO THIS BILL CURRENTLY.
IS ALSO INCLUDING THE ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITIES WERE
RECOMMENDING THAT THEY INCLUDE
ALSO, UM, THAT THEY REQUIRE
REFERRAL AGENCIES AND PLACEMENT
AGENCIES, AND THEY NOT JUST NOT
DISTINGUISHED FROM THE SEPARATE
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE
SAYING YOU'RE NOT A PLACEMENT
AGENCY, YOU'RE STILL BEING RE
NUMERATOR. ONCE SOMEBODY IS
PLACED IN A FACILITY. SENATOR
WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR RESPONSE
FROM WITNESSES OF SUPPORT?
ABSOLUTELY. WOULD YOU PLEASE
COME FORWARD TO THE TABLE SO
THAT WE CAN IF YOU FEEL MORE
COMFORTABLE COME FORWARD TO THE
TABLE. THANK YOU. JUST IN CASE
WE HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM
CHAIR. UM A COUPLE OF THE POINTS
SO THIS BILL DOES NOT REPRODUCE
THE STATUTES AND THE HEALTH AND
SAFETY CODE. IT DOESN'T TAKE THE
STATUTES OUT. JUST NOT. THEY'RE
NOT NECESSARY IN THE BILL. THE
INTENT OF THE BILL IS TO LEAVE
THE EXISTING LAW. IN PLACE THAT
CURRENTLY GOVERNS THE PROVISION.
THE SENATOR GLASER REFERRED TO
WHICH OUR CURRENT LAW IN
CALIFORNIA SAYS THAT YOU CAN
ONLY REFER TO A LOT LICENSE
FACILITY AND THEY HAVE TO HAVE
MEDICALLY APPROPRIATE CARE. UM
WE DON'T CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY
WE'RE ADDING IN THIS BILL,
ADDITIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS.
THAT LAW STAYS INTACT AND IS THE
CURRENT LAW IN CALIFORNIA. SO
THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THAT LAW
MADE BY THE SPILL. ADAM JEREMY.
JUST SO APPROPRIATE AND WHAT'S
THE WORD? APPROPRIATE CURRENT
STATUS? CURRENT STATUTE? YEAH,
APPROPRIATE. WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE
? UM IT'S LIKE YOU CAN'T CANNOT
REFER TO A FACILITY OR THAT THAT
DOES NOT PROVIDE APPROPRIATE,
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF CARE IF I
PARAPHRASING BECAUSE THEY DON'T
HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY, SO
GOING WITH THAT WITH WITH
SENATOR GLACIERS OPENING
STATEMENT IN WHICH HE SAID THAT
UM. THAT THERE IS RECOURSE FOR
THOSE WHO ARE REFERRED TO THE
FACILITIES THAT UNFIT WHO
DECIDED THE FACILITY IS UNFIT.
WHAT THEY HAVE TO BE LICENSED BY
THE STATE. THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.
BUT I THINK THAT'S A STATE
THAT'S AN EXISTING STANDARD THAT
THE STATE SETS FOR. WHAT'S UH,
APPROPRIATE LICENSE FACILITY FOR
THIS CARE? GET OUT HERE RIGHT.
THIS BILL CREATES A NEW LICENSE
REQUIREMENT FOR REFERRAL
AGENCIES. UM EXISTING LAW, OF
COURSE, REQUIRES THE STATE TO
LICENSE RESIDENTIAL CARE OR
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES. AND
THAT'S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE
LICENSING REQUIREMENT AND
PROGRAM. THAT'S NOT IN THIS BILL
. THIS IS EXISTING LAW, SO
BASICALLY WITH THE CURRENT LAW
SAYS IS A REFERRAL AGENCY
REPLACEMENT AGENCY CANNOT REFER
TO AN UNLICENSED. FACILITY THOSE
ARE THE FACILITIES THAT THE
PERSON WOULD BE LIVING IN. ALL
RIGHT. THANK YOU, MANAGER. THANK
YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS,
SENATOR WAHAB. I THINK THERE'S A
NUMBER OF QUESTIONS I HAVE, BUT
I WILL STICK TO. OKAY. SO WHEN
WE TALK ABOUT RESIDENTIAL
FACILITY, UM VERSUS AND YOU SAY,
SAID THAT IT WAS NOT A NURSING
FACILITY. CORRECT IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, IT'S
THERE'S SOME DEFINITION ISSUES
THAT MAY GO OVER MY HEAD, BUT
I'LL LAW GOVERNS THE REFERRALS
TO LONG TERM CARE FACILITIES.
THIS BILL ONLY APPLIES TO
REFERRAL AGENCIES THAT HAVE
REFERRED TO PEOPLE TO ASSISTED
LIVING FACILITIES. SO THIS IS
ONLY FOR ASSISTED LIVING ONLY
VERSUS THE LIVING, NOT
RETIREMENT HOMES, NOT YOU KNOW
ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM BECAUSE
GENERALLY I DON'T THINK THAT WE
DO THAT. BUT OKAY, BECAUSE
ASSISTED LIVING THERE. SO
THERE'S A NUMBER OF RETIREMENT
HOMES OR ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITIES IN MY DISTRICT IN
PARTICULAR, RIGHT, UM, AND TO BE
QUITE FRANK WITH YOU, UM A LOT
OF THE SENIORS ALSO TRUST AND
TRUST THESE ORGANIZATIONS WITH
HER FULL ASSETS. EVERYTHING TO
PAY FOR IT RIGHT. UM. MAYBE A
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT
THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN AS TO
OKAY SO WHO IS THE BAD ACTOR?
AND WHAT ARE YOU GUYS TRYING TO
ACTUALLY SOLVE? WELL THE
ORIGINAL KINS THE ORIGINAL
CONCERN THAT UNDERLIES THIS
BILL. IS NOT RELATED TO THE BAD
ACTORS IN THE ASSISTED LIVING
RESIDENTIAL SPACE. IT WAS
REFERRAL AGENCIES, SO THE
CALIFORNIA HAS NO LAW GOVERNING.
REFERRAL AGENCIES, FAMILIES USE
REFERRAL AGENCIES, SO THE
THOUGHT WAS CONSUMERS DESERVE
MORE INFORMATION OR SHOULD GET
MORE INFORMATION WHEN THEY
UTILIZE A REFERRAL AGENCY. UM,
AND SO THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF
THE HISTORY OF THE LEGISLATION.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS BILL
DOES IS. IT PROVIDES A LONG LIST
OF DISCLOSURES THAT FAMILIES
WILL GET WHEN THEY CONTACT A
REFERRAL AGENCY TO USE THEIR
SERVICES IN HELPING FIND AN
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AS WELL
AS OTHER PROVISIONS LIKE CEASE
CONTACT. LET'S SAY, AND I JUST
WANT TO WALK THIS THROUGH,
RIGHT? THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. SO IF YOU
HAVE AN ELDER THAT YOU'RE TRYING
TO POTENTIALLY PUT IN AN
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, UM AND
. YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE IN THE
HOSPITAL. YOU'RE TALKING TO THE
CASEWORKER AND SOCIAL WORKER AND
YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, SO WHAT IS
THE NEXT STEP? HOW DO THEY GET
TO THE REFERRAL AGENCY? HOW DOES
THE REFERRAL AGENCY REFER? I
MEAN, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE
FAMILY IS LOOKING FOR IT AND
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND
THEY GO ONLINE. THEY LOOK UP
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY LIKE I
DID BECAUSE MY MOM WASN'T LIKE
LAS VEGAS AND I WAS LIVING HERE
IN SACRAMENTO, AND I GOT A CALL
FROM EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS
SAYING YOUR MOM SIMPLY LIVING ON
THEIR OWN LAS VEGAS. UM SO YOU,
YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO, YOU
MIGHT GO INTO THE YELLOW PAGES.
NOW. MOST PEOPLE GO ONLINE
LOOKING FOR INFORMATION, AND
THEN YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
YOU'LL GET LIKE HITS ON REFERRAL
AGENCIES LIKE A PLACE FOR MOM.
IF YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE AND
YOU CHOOSE TO ENTER YOUR
INFORMATION THEN YOU WILL GET A
CALL FROM WHAT WE CALL A SENIOR
ADVISER WHO WILL GO THROUGH WITH
YOU IN A IN AN INTERVIEW WHAT
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR WHAT KIND OF
FACILITY? UM WHAT'S YOUR WHAT
WAS THERE ANY PARTICULAR MEDICAL
ILLNESS, WHETHER THEY WANT TO
FACILITY THAT'S DOG FRIENDLY,
PET FRIENDLY. UM AND THEN YOU'LL
GET LIKE THREE REFERRALS IF YOU
AGREE. AND YOU MUST AGREE.
THEY'LL GIVE YOUR INFORMATION TO
THOSE 33 FACILITIES. BUT THERE
IS NO OBLIGATION. THERE'S NO
CONTRACT. THERE'S NO CHARGE, SO
IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU. WHAT IS
THE FUNDING MECHANISM? SO DO THE
INDIVIDUAL HOMES, UM OR AGENCIES
YOU KNOW, PAY TO BE BUMPED UP ON
THE TOP THREE. AS YOU SAID, UM,
INDIVIDUAL? NO BASICALLY LIKE A
COMPANY LIKE A PLACE FOR MOM.
LITERALLY HAS HUNDREDS OF
CONTRACTS WITH ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY,
CALIFORNIA ACROSS THE COUNTRY,
AND SO THEY CONTRACT WITH THE
SYSTEM, LIVING FACILITIES TO
PROVIDE REFERRALS OR THE OTHER
WAY OF LOOKING AT IT AS A
FACILITY CONTRACTS WITH THEM. TO
PROVIDE REFERRALS. AND YOU SEE
THAT SO THEY DO PAY TO SOME
DEGREE. ONE OF THE BILLS WERE
DISCLOSURES. IS THAT FACT? SO
RIGHT NOW, IF YOU CONTACT SO
RIGHT NOW IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU
USE THAT REFERRAL AGENCY, THERE
IS NO REQUIREMENT OF THE
DISCLOSURE THAT THEY'RE GETTING
PAID BY THE ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITY. THIS BILL REQUIRES
THAT DISCLOSURE AS ONE OF THE
DISCLOSURES SO THAT FAMILIES GET
THAT INFORMATION. SO THEY KNOW
IT RIGHT NOW. THERE IS NO
REQUIREMENT IN CALIFORNIA LAW
THAT THEY GET THAT DISCLOSURE.
SIMILARLY THE BILL ADDS A
REQUIREMENT TO CALIFORNIA LAW
THAT TELLS YOU THAT WE ONLY
REFER TO ENTITIES WITH WHICH WE
HAVE A CONTRACT, NOT A
REQUIREMENT IN CALIFORNIA LAW
TODAY, SO THE INTENT OF THIS
BILL IS TO PROVIDE YOU THE
FAMILY WHO IS USUALLY REFERRAL
AGENCY RIGHT NOW WITHOUT ANY OF
THOSE DISCLOSURES, DISCLOSURES.
I'M GONNA. GIVE SPACE. UM WOULD
YOU GUYS LIKE TO RESPOND TO
THAT? I WOULD. FIRST OF ALL WE
DO HAVE STATUTE 15 69.47. IT IS
A HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE. WE
HAVE ASKED THE SPONSORS TO
INCLUDE REFERRAL AGENCIES UNDER
THAT CODE. WE ALREADY HAVE
EXISTING LAW THAT PROTECTS
CONSUMERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND
WHY THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE A
SEPARATE THING ONLY FOR REFERRAL
AGENCIES THE SUPPLIES TO
PLACEMENT AGENCIES. THE LAW THAT
THEY REFERENCE IN THIS BILL IS
FOR REFERRAL AND PLACEMENT
AGENCIES THAT REFER AND PLACE
FOR SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES.
AND THAT IS OVERSEEN BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, AND
THAT ALREADY EXISTS. SO THAT'S
WHY IN MY OPENING, I SAID, THIS
IS A VERY CONFUSING BILL. I AM
NOT SURE WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO
ACHIEVE. AND IF WE DO WANT TO
PROTECT CONSUMERS? YES I BELIEVE
THAT THAT REFERRAL AND PLACEMENT
AGENCIES REGARDLESS OF WHERE
YOUR ONLINE OR HAVE A BRICK AND
MORTAR NEED TO BE LICENSED BY AN
ENTITY, THE CDSS IS NOT
INTERESTED IN THAT BECAUSE IT'S
TOO EXPENSIVE. DOJ MAYBE, BUT WE
HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS
WITH THEM. SO THIS IS STILL
THERE'S. A LOT OF WORK TO BE
DONE BEFORE THIS IS READY.
SENATOR WAHAB WAS YOUR QUESTION
ANSWERED. OR WOULD YOU LIKE YOU?
I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR EXPLANATION AS WELL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY
UM, FOLLOW UP QUESTION, SENATOR.
MAN MENJIVAR. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
MADAM CHAIR SENATOR WANTED TO
CONFIRM WHEN YOU WERE IN THE
SENATOR. HERE. WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT THE SUITABLE REFERRALS AND
WHAT YOU COMMITTED TO? I JUST
WANT TO MAKE SURE UM, THAT WHILE
THEY COULD BE THEY ARE GOING TO
BE DISCLOSED TO THE CONSUMER
THAT THEY'RE GETTING REFERRALS
TO PLACES THAT THEY HAVE
CONTRACTS WITH. IS IT? IT MIGHT
CORRECT IN IN HEARING THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO YOU ARE
COMMITTED TO WORKING. ON
REMOVING LANGUAGE THAT THEY WILL
ONLY GET REFERRALS THAT ARE
SUITABLE TO THEM BECAUSE ONE OF
THE ARGUMENTS OF THE OPPOSITION
FOR JUSTICE AND AGING WAS THAT
THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
GIVE REFROZEN AREN'T SUITABLE TO
THEM, RIGHT? AND YES, YOU HAVE
YOU HAVE MY COMMITMENT ON THAT.
AND THEN MY. MY SECOND QUESTION
IS KIND OF THE QUESTION THAT THE
SENATOR HAS AROUND THE BAD
ACTORS. UM IS EVERYONE CURRENTLY
LICENSED RIGHT NOW, AND IN FACT,
I WANT TO GO TO THE CENTER,
WHICH SHOW BUGS POINT THAT SHE
MADE EARLIER. LOOK AT TODAY. YOU
CONTACT REFERRING AGENT A AND I
ASKED FOR HELP. REFERRING AGENT
A COULD HAVE AN INVESTMENT THAT
COULD BE IT COULD MANAGE
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY NEVER
DISCLOSE IT HAVE A FINANCIAL
INTEREST IN THE REFERRAL TODAY
THAT CAN HAPPEN RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S NO LIMITATION. THIS BILL
SAYS. YOU CAN'T DO THAT THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. THAT'S AN
EXAMPLE OF TRYING TO RAISE THE
BAR TO WHERE THERE IS. THERE'S
NOTHING TODAY. AND WE'RE TRYING
TO LEAST SET SOME STANDARDS.
OPPOSITION WOULD LIKE US TO GO
FURTHER AND IN FACT, BY THE WAY,
WHEN GOVERNOR BROWN TOLD US
SIMILAR TYPE BILL, HE SAID. I
DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY
REGULATION IN THIS AREA AND
GOVERNOR NEWSOM SAYS. I WANT
SOME VOTE. IT HAS TO BE AT THE
RIGHT LEVEL. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE
WORKING ON HERE. RIGHT NOW.
THERE IS NO IT'S A WILD WEST. I
CAN BE. I COULD BE A CONFLICT OF
INTEREST. AND THERE'S NOTHING TO
DISCLOSE IT. THERE'S NO
REQUIREMENT THEY POST THESE
THESE INFORMATION ON THEIR
WEBSITE, ETCETERA. SO WE'RE
WE'RE TRYING TO. I KNOW THIS IS
A IT'S A TOUGH ISSUE TO WRESTLE
WITH, AND YOU CAN TELL IT'S BEEN
WRESTLED WITH FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO SET SOME
MINIMUM STANDARDS IN THE SPACE,
MADAM. SURE JUST ONE LAST
QUESTION IF I COULD DIRECT IT TO
THE, UM TO THE TWO WOMEN HERE IF
THIS BILL DOESN'T MOVE FORWARD,
EVERYTHING STAYS THE SAME.
PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO
CONSUMERS ARE STILL GOING TO BE
REFERRED TO SITES THAT AREN'T
SUITABLE FOR THEM. UM IF THIS
BILL MOVES FORWARD, THEY WILL NO
LONGER BE REFERRED TO SITES THAT
ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR THEM, AND
THEY'LL BE DISCLOSED THAT
THERE'S A CONTRACT. HELP ME.
IT'S UNCLEAR TO US WHAT IT'S
REALLY HARD TO READ THIS BILL
AND FIGURE OUT HOW IT CONSUMER.
HAVE THIS MAKES A MEANINGFUL
DIFFERENCE AND AN IMPROVEMENT IN
THE EXPERIENCE OF SOMEBODY GOING
THROUGH THE PROCESS OF USING
THESE, UM PLACEMENT AND REFERRAL
AGENCIES. AS I THINK WE ALL
AGREE HERE. PEOPLE USE THESE. UM
AGENCIES IN TIMES OF EXTREME
CRISIS. UM, FAMILY MEMBER ENDS
UP IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM. A
FAMILY MEMBER IS STARTING TO
RAPIDLY DECLINE IN TERMS OF
THEIR ALZHEIMER'S OR DEMENTIA,
AND PEOPLE FEEL DESPERATE TO
FIND US SOLUTION AND A SAFE
PLACE TO SEND THEIR FAMILY
MEMBER. AND IT IS. IMPERATIVE TO
US. THAT PEOPLE GET PUT IN THE
RIGHT PLACE THAT HAS MEETS THEIR
LEVEL OF CARE. AND I THINK WE
ALL AGREE ON THAT. THE LANGUAGE
HERE. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE CAN.
WE'RE STILL IN OPPOSITION
BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THE
LANGUAGE HERE MEETS THAT BAR AND
WE'RE VERY CONCERNED THAT THERE
ARE SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
HERE LIKE THIS. THE SUBSECTION
HERE THAT BLANCA RED SUBJECTS IN
G. IT'S VERY IT'S. IN THE POLICY
MAKING PROCESS. YOU WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE'RE IMPROVING WHAT
WE HAVE NOT MAKING WHAT WE HAVE
WORSE AND RIGHT NOW WHAT WE
HAVE, I'LL AGREE. IT'S NOT GREAT
. IT'S THE BARE MINIMUM THAT
WHAT WE HAVE IN EXISTING LAW,
BUT IT IS SOMETHING AND THERE
ARE PROTECTIONS FOR PEOPLE IN
EXISTING LAW. THIS MUDDIES THE
WATERS IN OUR OPINION. SENATOR
TODD OH, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR
UP. I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES
TO THIS BILL, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY
THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM FOR
IMPROVEMENT. IT SEEMS LIKE
THERE'S WILLINGNESS ON THE
AUTHORS AND TO WORK ON THE
ISSUES OR THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE
BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD. I DO THINK
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO
MOVE FORWARD. AND UM AND WHILE
NOT PERFECT, I WILL SUPPORT IT
TODAY MOVING. MAKE BEN MAKING
SURE THAT, UM, THAT WE GET IT
RIGHT AND THAT ALL PARTIES COME
ON BOARD AND FEEL COMFORTABLE
ABOUT WHERE IT'S AT WITH THAT
SAID I WILL MOVE. WARM UP THE
BILL. EMOTION WHEN READY, UM,
HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT, PLEASE
SENATOR MARCO B¢O. JUST ONE
FINAL QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND. SO
I UNDERSTAND THE POINT THAT
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE I
UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF WHAT IS
BEING DONE HERE ON THAT END, AND
I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT MILK
ROUND. AYE. I'M GRAVITATING
TOWARDS SUPPORTING THE BILL
TODAY AND SEEING THE FINAL
LANGUAGE AT THE VERY END AND
RESERVING MY RIGHT ON ABSTAINING
OR OPPOSING OR SUPPORTING IT.
ONCE I SEE THE FINAL LANGUAGE,
THEY KNOW I KNOW YOU'RE A
DILIGENT WORKER WHEN IT COMES TO
YOUR POLICY, BUT I UNDERSTAND
BOTH SIDES ON THIS, AND I DO SEE
A NEED, THOUGH NOT PERFECT RIGHT
NOW AND WHAT WE NEED TO WORK
TOWARDS BUT A STATEMENT WAS MADE
EARLIER WITH REGARDS TO THE
INTENT OF TRYING TO REGULATE
THIS SPACE SINCE 2015. I BELIEVE
THAT'S WHAT YOU YOU STATED, AND
NOTHING HAS COME THROUGH. SO MY
QUESTION TO YOU IS WHO AT THIS
POINT HAS AUTHORED THE BEST BILL
AT THIS POINT, AND WHO'S TAKING
THE LEAD ON THAT? IF YOU KNOW,
IF NOT YOU OR YOU KNOW, IN YOUR
IN YOUR END, WHO HAS COME
TOGETHER TO MOVE FORWARD A BILL
AND WHY HASN'T IT BEEN DONE YET?
AS OF YET? WHO'S YOUR QUESTION
TO SENATOR. I'LL LEAVE IT OPEN
TO, I GUESS TO THE AUTHORS. TO
THE AUTHOR FIRST. WELL, LOOK, UM
IN MANY WAYS, THIS IS A FRIENDLY
CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE ALL
REALLY HAVE THE SAME GOAL. AND I
THINK SENATOR AS YOU INDICATED,
I MEAN, LOOK AT ALL THE AUTHORS
SINCE 2015 RUBIO CALLED IRAN
REYES MENDOZA MENDOZA AGAIN.
WE'VE ALL BEEN TRYING TO RAISE
THE BAR AND WE'RE HAVING THESE
FIGHTS AMONG FRIENDS WHO WANT
THE BAR TO BE HIGHER LOWER. YOU
KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE
PROGRESS, AND IT'S VERY
DIFFICULT SPACE WHERE I THINK
MAYBE WE'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT. I
THINK THAT THE FLOOR THAT WE'RE
ON RIGHT NOW ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE
BAD ACTORS THAT AREN'T GETTING
ANY REVIEW WHATSOEVER. AND UM,
LOOK, I ORIGINALLY I WAS JUST
INTO DISCLOSURE AND BECAUSE OF
THE GOOD COMMENTS FROM FRIENDS
ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE ADDED
LICENSING NOW THEY WANT TO
LICENSE EVERYTHING. PLACEMENT
AGENCIES WERE ACTUALLY PLACING
SOMEONE AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT
. WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH
REFERRALS. SO WE'RE GOING TO
CONTINUE. IF THIS IN THE
COMMITTEE'S JUDGMENT, THIS BILL
MOVES FORWARD GOING TO CONTINUE
TO WORK WITH OUR FRIENDS BECAUSE
WE WANT TO TRY TO CREATE A
HIGHER STANDARD, AND WE DON'T
WANT IT TO BE BUDDY. NOBODY
WANTS THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO
BE REGULATED PROPERLY. I DON'T
EVEN LIKE REGULATION. BUT WE'RE
TRYING TO CREATE STANDARDS OF
FAIRNESS. I'M INTO THAT. LET'S
SEE IF WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT.
THIS BILL GOES ON. THANK YOU.
OKAY ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS FROM NOVEMBER'S
ALRIGHT? THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM
SENATOR GLACIER. I JUST WANT TO
POINT OF CLARIFICATION BECAUSE
WE TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT TERMS
THAT WERE USED PARTICULARLY
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES, AND
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
UNDERSTAND THAT ASSISTED LIVING
FACILITIES ARE USED TO DESCRIBE
A VARIETY OF FACILITIES,
PROVIDING BOTH HOUSING AND
PERSONAL CARE. AND THEY DO
INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL CARE
FACILITIES, SO IT'S ALL
ENCOMPASSING AND THESE ARE
FACILITIES THAT PRIMARILY SERVE
ADULTS OVER THE AGE OF 60. SO I
JUST WANT FOR CLARITY SAKE THAT
THIS IS NOT A BILL THAT EXCLUDES
CERTAIN TYPES OF FACILITIES, BUT
IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE. IS THAT
CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK
YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. YES
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY IS
THAT YOU KNOW, NOTING THAT THIS
BILL HAS BEEN WORKED MOSTLY IN
THE ASSEMBLY. UM I CAN'T THINK
OF A BETTER, UM, COLLEAGUE TO
BRING FORWARD THIS BILL. AND SO
THANK YOU, SENATOR GLACIER FOR
WORKING SO DILIGENTLY ON THIS,
UM AND I KNOW THAT YOU ALSO
GRACEFULLY GRACEFULLY AGREED TO
MAKE IT A TWO YEAR BILL SO THAT
WE COULD HAVE THAT TIME FOR YOU
TO WORK WITH THE OPPOSITION AND
TO REALLY GET THAT LANGUAGE,
RIGHT? I DON'T BELIEVE IN
PERFECTION. AND THIS IS NOT A
PERFECT BILL, BUT I DO
UNDERSTAND THE UNDERLYING
INTENT. AND THIS IS A
PREVENTATIVE BILL. FOR ME. THIS
IS A BILL THAT LOOKS AT THE
SILVER TSUNAMI AS MY WONDERFUL
COLLEAGUE COINED IT. AND PUTS
THE RESPONSIBILITY ON ON THIS
GOVERNING BOARD ON THIS THIS, UM
THIS LEGISLATURE TO MAKE THOSE
DECISIONS AROUND OUR AGING
POPULATION AND BEING THAT THIS
HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR EIGHT
YEARS, I FEEL THAT NOW WE ARE,
THERE'S AN URGENCY HERE BECAUSE
IF THERE ARE LOOPHOLES IF THERE
ARE CREVICES THAT ARE CREATING
MORE UM BAD ACTORS, MORE
SITUATIONS WHERE SOME OF OUR
MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ARE
BECOMING VICTIMS OR TARGETS. I
WANT TO BE PART OF THAT SOLUTION
, SO I WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO
CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS BILL. I
KNOW IT WILL BE DOUBLE REFERRED,
AND I HAVE FAITH OF MY
COLLEAGUES IN THE JUDICIARY
COMMITTEE TO CONTINUE TO PRESS
HARD. ON ON THE LANGUAGE OF THIS
BILL. UM SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL TODAY. UM AND WE'LL
ALSO RESERVE MY RIGHT IF AND
WHEN IT COMES TO US ON THE
FLOOR, UM, TO LOOK AT THE FINAL
COMPOSITION OF THE BILL, UM, BUT
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
CONTINUING TO BE DILIGENT TO BE
A GOOD PARTNER IN THIS AND TO
BRINGING FORTH ALL THE VOICES TO
THE TABLE TODAY, OKAY? UM THAT
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS WILL INVITE YOU TO
CLOSE. THANK YOU CHAIR AND I'M
SURE MY COLLEAGUES HAVE HEARD ME
SAY THAT THIS IS REALLY A TWO
YEAR BILL AND THEY GET
UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN IT'S THEIR
BILL. I DID IT TO MY OWN BILL
LAST SPRING, I SAID, YOU KNOW,
WE NEED MORE TIME THAT WE
HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO WORK OUT
THESE ISSUES. I KNOW THAT I SEE
A PATH. STILL NOT AS CLEAR AS
I'D LIKE IT TO BE, BUT I DID. I
DID IT TO MY OWN BILL CALLED MY
OWN TWO YEAR BILL, AND YOU CAN
SEE THAT IT'S A IT'S A DIFFICULT
PATH TO KIND OF GET THROUGH AND
YEAH. IF IN THE INTEREST OF THE
COMMITTEE YOU LET ME TO CONTINUE
TO WORK ON IT, I WILL. THIS
ISN'T A SPACE THAT I NATURALLY
LEGISLATED IN. BUT IT'S A SPACE
WE ALL FEEL IN OUR HEARTS
BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE FRIENDS AND
FAMILY WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH
THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND TO MY
FRIENDS WHO WERE IN THE
OPPOSITION IT, I UNDERSTAND IT,
AND THEY COME WITH THE BEST OF
INTENTIONS BECAUSE THEY DO
INCREDIBLE WORK FOR OUR SENIOR
COMMUNITY THAT THAT THAT GETS
IGNORED. AND THESE DILEMMAS THAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE ARE NOT
DILEMMAS THAT WE FACE IN OUR
LEGISLATIVE LIFE VERY OFTEN.
YET, AS HAS BEEN SAID ONE OUT OF
FOR CALIFORNIANS WILL BE OVER
THE AGE OF 66 YEARS. AND THERE.
THERE ARE BAD ACTORS OUT THERE.
I'LL JUST THAT'S MY HERE TO
PROTECT ANYBODY. WE HAVE TO HAVE
SOME MINIMUM STANDARDS THAT THE
BILL ATTEMPTS TO TRY TO SET A
LITTLE HIGHER BAR. CAN WE DO IT
BETTER? YES LET'S WORK ON IT IF
YOU DESIRE, AND WITH THAT
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE.
THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THE WORK. THAT
ARE CONSUMER ADVOCATES FOR OUR
AGING POPULATION DO CERTAINLY A
DIFFICULT TABLE TO BE AT AND
THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO
BRING YOUR VOICES FORWARD. SO WE
HAVE A MOTION. THE BILL HAS BEEN
MOVED BY SENATOR BATTLE
ASSISTANT. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
S P A 75. THE MOTION IS DO PASS
THROUGH JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. I
BROUGHT A GILL. I DON'T I DON'T
SHOWBOAT ABOUT. I HAD THOUGHT I
THOUGHT I MENTIONED BEFORE. WOW.
OKAY SO THE VOTE IS THREE EYES
AND TWO ABSTENTIONS. UM, THAT
BILL PASSES. AND WITH ALL
MEMBERS PRESENT TODAY WE HAVE
FINISHED OUR BUSINESS TODAY. I
WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR
WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH US.
HAPPY 2024 WELCOME BACK. IT WAS
NICE TO GET SOME VISITS FROM OUR
PUBLIC SAFETY STAFF. SO THANK
YOU SO MUCH. WE WILL BE ENDING
TODAY'S HUMAN SERVICES
COMMISSION COMMITTEE. THANK YOU.