THE ON BUDGET AND FISCAL REVIEW
WILL COME TO ORDER. WE'RE
HOLDING OUR COMMITTEE HERE IN
OUR Ó STREET SWING SPACE. UH WE
DO NOT YET HAVE A QUORUM, SO
I'LL ASK MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE TO PLEASE COME DOWN
WHEN YOU CAN AND WE'LL ESTABLISH
A QUORUM ONCE WE HIT 11 MEMBERS.
PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE HEARD.
AFTER ALL DISCUSSION OF THE, UH,
PRESENTED BILL AND SO WE WILL
BEGIN, UH, PRESENTATION OF OUR
SINGLE ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
AND THEN ESTABLISH A QUORUM WHEN
WE OBTAIN ONE OK, STILL NÓ
PROBLEM. UM OK, SO WE'LL BE
HEARING ONE HERE ONE BILL TODAY
ASSEMBLY BILL 136 RELATING TO
THE MANAGED CARE ORGANIZATION
TAX. AND A B 136 IS ONE
COMPONENT OF THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET AND PART OF THE SENATE'S
PLAN TO SHRINK THE SHORTFALL. SO
WE'RE TAKING EARLY ACTION ON IT.
IN ADDITION TO ONE OTHER ITEM IN
THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE, AND
THIS WILL BE A FIRST STEP
TOWARDS BRINGING OUR BUDGET INTO
BALANCE, WHICH WILL BE A LOT OF
WORK BETWEEN NOW AND JUNE, AND
THIS IS STEP NUMBER ONE. SO
TODAY WE'LL START WITH THE
ADMINISTRATION, WHICH WILL
DESCRIBE THIS ACTION IN DETAIL.
THE BILL WILL ALLOW CALIFORNIA
TO DRAW DOWN NEARLY $1.5 BILLION
OF ADDITIONAL FEDERAL MATCHING
FUNDS TO HELP OFFSET THE
NONFEDERAL SHARE OF EXPENDITURES
IN THE MEDI CAL PROGRAM. BY
RELIEVING THE GENERAL FUND OF
COSTS RELATING TO ME. THESE
CHANGES TO THE M èC Ó TAX, AS
WELL AS THE USE OF RESERVE FUNDS
FROM THE EXISTING TAX WILL HELP
SHRINK THE SHORTFALL BY $3.8
BILLION. AS WE'RE AWARE, WE HAVE
A HUGE SHORTFALL THAT WILL
REQUIRE A LOT OF HARD DECISIONS
IN THE COMING MONTHS AND AGAIN.
TODAY IS STEP ONE. I WANT TO
THANK THE ADMINISTRATION AND OUR
PARTNERS IN THE ASSEMBLY FOR
WORKING TO COME TO AGREEMENT ON
THIS PROPOSAL. SO BEFORE WE
BEGIN, UH MISTER VICE CHAIR. DO
YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? SENATOR.
EXCUSE ME. STUDYING PAPERWORK
THAT I JUST RECEIVED VERY
STUDIOUSLY. I DON'T HAVE ANY
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. THANK YOU.
THE 10. OK UM, WITH THAT SAID,
WE'LL NOW GO TO, UH, ERICA LEE
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
TO PRESENT THIS PROPOSAL. THANK
YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR.
WIENER UH, VICE CHAIR NEO AND
MEMBERS OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE
ERICA LIU WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE. UM I'M HERE TO PRESENT
A PORTION OF THE
ADMINISTRATION'S MANAGED CARE
ORGANIZATION, OR M èC TAX
PROPOSAL, WHICH IS ONE OF MANY
SIGNIFICANT SOLUTIONS THAT WERE
INCLUDED IN THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. UM, AS YOU WILL RECALL,
I WAS HERE TESTIFYING IN FRONT
OF THIS COMMITTEE, UM, ON THE
PROJECTED BUDGET SHORTFALL,
WHICH WAS ESTIMATED TO BE
ROUGHLY $38 BILLION AT THE
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET IN LIGHT OF
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ASKED THE
LEGISLATURE TO TAKE EARLY ACTION
, UM, TO REQUEST THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT APPROVE AN AMENDMENT
TO THE RECENTLY APPROVED M èC
Ó PROVIDER TAX. SO WHAT DOES
THIS MEAN? SPECIFICALLY THE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSES TO
MODIFY BM èC Ó TAX, WHICH WAS
AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO THE 2020
THREE BUDGET ACT, UM, AND
APPROVED BY THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT BACK IN DECEMBER OF
LAST YEAR FOR THE PERIOD OF
JANUARY, 1 2024. SO BEGINNING
THIS YEAR THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST
OF 2026 THE APPROVED M èC Ó
TAX THAT IS THAT THE CURRENT
APPROVED M èC Ó TAX, UM,
ALLOWS THE STATE TO DRAW DOWN
19.4 BILLION IN TOTAL FUNDING,
SOME OF WHICH WILL GO TOWARDS
PROVIDER RATES PROVIDER RATES
AND, UM, ANOTHER BUCKET WILL GO
TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL FUND AND
THE MEDICAL PROGRAM. UH, THE CO.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S CURRENT
PROPOSAL WOULD DRAW DOWN AN
ADDITIONAL 1.5 BILLION TO
ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 20.9 BILLION.
SO BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A QUORUM
AND I'VE LEARNED OVER THE YEARS
TO STRIKE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT.
UM SO MY APOLOGIES. WE WILL
ESTABLISH A QUORUM. SENATORS, WE
ARE PRESIDENT. MILO HERE. ALAN
HERE. BECKER. BLAKESPEAR DOLLY
DIAZO. EGG MAN. GROWTH. LAIRD.
MANJAR MEN. NEW MEN. PADE ROTH
HERE. èC R TWO. HERE. SKINNER.
SMALLWOOD QUAVERS. WAH. WILK. WE
HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. YOU
MAY PROCEED. UM AGAIN, THE THIS
PROPOSAL WOULD DRAW DOWN AN
ADDITIONAL 1.5 BILLION FOR A
TOTAL OF 20.9 BILLION IN FEDERAL
FUNDS. UM THIS ADDITIONAL 1.5
BILLION IS PROPOSED TO SUPPORT
THE MEDICAL PROGRAM THROUGH 2627
, WHICH WILL HELP MAINTAIN
EXISTING SERVICES AND MINIMIZE
THE NEED FOR REDUCTIONS IN THE
MEDICAL PROGRAM. THE PROPOSAL
DOES NOT IMPACT THE TARGETED
RATE INCREASES. I JUST WANT TO
HIGHLIGHT THAT THE PROPOSED UM
UH, THE APPROVED UM MM èC Ó AT
THE 2020 THREE BUDGET HAS NOT
CHANGED IN REGARDS TO RATE
INCREASES AND THE DEAL THAT WAS
MADE THROUGH THAT BUDGET. UH AND
IT IT JUST I. I KNOW THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT. SO I
WANTED TO DO THAT TO THE FOR THE
COMMITTEE, UM, TO BE ABLE TO
COLLECT TAX REVENUES OF
RETROACTIVE TO THIS YEAR. THE
PROPOSAL NEEDS LEGISLATIVE
APPROVAL NÓ LATER THAN THE END
OF MARCH. THIS ALLOWS THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE
SERVICES TO GO AND SEEK THAT
APPROVAL FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. WE APPRECIATE THE
SENATE'S EARLY MOVEMENT ON THIS
PARTICULAR PROPOSAL. UM IT'S AN
IMPORTANT SOLUTION. HOWEVER AS
NOTED, THE MAGNITUDE OF OUR
BUDGET SHORTFALL IS SUCH THAT
IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO COME
TOGETHER WITH AN EVEN BIGGER AND
BROADER EARLY ACTION PACKAGE SO
THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO SOLVE THIS
PROBLEM NOW AND AS SUCH, WE ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THE SENATE'S
SHRINK THE SHORTFALL PLAN THAT
WAS RELEASED LAST WEEK. WE
BELIEVE IT IS A SIGNIFICANT MOVE
IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO
ADDRESS THE BUDGET SHORTFALL,
AND WE LOOK FORWARD. WITH THIS
WITH THE SENATE AS WELL AS WITH
THE ASSEMBLY TO, UM, CONTINUE
WORKING ON THAT BIGGER, BROADER
EARLY ACTION PACKAGE. UM, THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. UM UM, HERE WITH
MY COLLEAGUE TO RESPOND TO ANY
QUESTIONS. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY
MUCH. AND I JUST WANT TO NOTE
THAT THE L A Ó IS ALSO HERE FOR
ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP
WITH THAT, SAID COLLEAGUES. ARE
THERE ANY QUESTIONS? UH, FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE OR FOR THE
L, A Ó. ON THIS ISSUE. YES,
SENATOR NEO. SO PROPOSAL IS
TROUBLING BECAUSE OF SIGNIFICANT
CHANGE FROM THE DIRECTION OF
THIS ACTION IN THE IN THE BUDGET
YEAR, 2324. THERE IS NOTHING
EXTRA GOING TO PROVIDERS. IT'S
ALL GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND.
AND IN FACT FROM THE 20 THREE 24
PROPOSAL THE AMOUNT IF I
UNDERSTAND THE NUMBERS
CORRECTLY, THE AMOUNT TO
PROVIDERS IS BEING JUST ABOUT
CUT IN HALF. FROM, UH UM. WILL
NOT QUITE HAVE BUT BUT FROM
11,000 DOWN TO ABOUT 7000, I
THINK THE NUMBER IS 11 MILLION,
DOWN TO SEVEN. BILLION THE
NUMBERS ARE GETTING SO BIG. I AM
HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING TRACK
OF THEM, BUT, UM I AM NOT SURE
THAT I SEE GIVEN THE SHAPE OF
THE, UH OF OUR, UM, HEALTH
SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHERE
ASSISTANCE COULD GO. I DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC FOR THAT
SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE IN WHERE
THESE FUNDS ARE GOING. AND
SENATOR. LET ME JUST CLARIFY
THAT THE ACT BEFORE THIS
COMMITTEE IS ONLY TO ASK FOR, UM
UH, THE 1.5 BILLION IN
ADDITIONAL M èC Ó. I THINK YOU
ARE REFERRING TO THE OTHER PART
OF OUR LARGER PROPOSAL, WHICH IS
, UM, USING SOME OF THE FUNDS
THAT WOULD GO INTO A RESERVE IN
THE PRIOR YEAR IN THE CURRENT
YEAR, WHICH TOTAL ABOUT 3.1
BILLION, UM AND MOVING THAT INTO
COULD BE USED TO SUPPORT THE
GENERAL FUND. UM I, I AGAIN
WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT WE MADE
COMMITMENTS TO INCREASE PROVIDER
RATES THAT WE CONTINUE TO STAND
BEHIND. UM THE RESERVE WAS SET
ASIDE TO CONTINUE FUNDING THOSE
THE HIGHER PROVIDER RATES IN FOR
AN ADDITIONAL YEAR. UM WHAT WE
WILL HAVE TO DO IS COME BACK AND
DISCUSS WHERE THAT FUNDING WILL
COME FROM. IF IT'S THE RENEWED
ANOTHER M èC Ó TAX AT THAT
DATE OR IF IT'S ANOTHER FUND,
BUT THE ADMINISTRATION IS
COMMITTED TO PAYING THOSE HIGHER
PROVIDER RATES. UM, WE DO
ACKNOWLEDGE THE BUDGET SHORTFALL
THAT IS BEFORE US AND THAT IS
THE REASON FOR THE BROADER USE
OF THE RESERVE AS WELL AS THIS
ADDITIONAL 1.5 BILLION UM, YOU
ACKNOWLEDGE THE BUDGET SHORTFALL
, BUT IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY,
UH, YOU STILL MAINTAIN THAT IT'S
THE $35 BILLION SHORTFALL THAT
THE GOVERNOR CITED IN JANUARY.
SO UM, IT WAS A ABOUT
38,000,000,038 AT THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET. AND I WOULD JUST SAY
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
UM PROVIDES A FORECAST TWICE A
YEAR, UM, ONCE AT THE GOVERNOR'S
BUDGET, AND AGAIN THROUGH THE
MAY REVISION WHEN WE HAVE OUR
CASH RECEIPTS IN HAND AFTER
APRIL 15TH. I STATED THIS
EARLIER IN THE LARGER BUDGET
OVERVIEW IN JANUARY, UM, WHEN WE
WERE BUILDING THE 2020 THREE
BUDGET, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DATA
HANDY. AND SO WE GUESS WE
FORECAST. BEST OF OUR ABILITY
BASED ON THAT, AND OBVIOUSLY, UM
, WE HAVE A, UH IT WAS IT THE
REVENUES CAME IN SHORT OF WHAT
WE WERE PROJECTING, AND THAT IS
PART OF WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
NOW UM, WE ARE LOOKING AT
REDUCED REVENUES ON A MONTHLY
BASIS. AT THIS POINT. WE'RE
TRACKING THAT. WE HAVE A MONTHLY
BULLETIN THAT WE PUT OUT, UM IN
REGARDS TO CASH RECEIPTS. AND
PERHAPS THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE
REFERENCING AS WELL. OR PERHAPS
YOU'RE REFERENCING THE NUMBER
THAT THE L A Ó, UM, HAS COME
OUT WITH, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A
PASS TWICE A YEAR, AND WE WILL
UPDATE THAT AT THE MAY REVISION
TO, UM REFLECT THE CASH RECEIPTS
THAT COME IN FROM NOW. FROM
NOVEMBER THROUGH, UM, APRIL. SO
WAYNE GRETZKY FAMOUSLY SAID, UH,
YOU SHOOT THE PUCK TO WHERE IT
NEEDS TO GO NOT WHERE IT IS, AND
SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE STILL, UM
, SHOOTING FOR A DEFICIT THAT IS
NOT EVOLVING AND CHANGING, WHICH
WE CLEARLY SEE THAT IT IS YOUR
TIMING OF FORECAST
NOTWITHSTANDING. THANK YOU,
SENATOR. NILA, UM, SENATOR
MENTOR. FOLLOWED BY SENATOR
LAIRD AND SENATOR ROTH. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. UM YOU KNOW THIS
FALLS DIRECTLY UNDER SUB THREE,
AND LAST YEAR I WAS SO I WAS
VERY VOCAL IN SAYING, YOU KNOW,
NÓ DOLLARS OUT OF THE M èC Ó
TAX TO THE GENERAL FUND. IT WAS
A DIFFERENT SITUATION BACK THERE
AND SEND TO YOUR POINT. UM YOU
KNOW, WE'RE NOT TOUCHING ANY OF
THAT DYNAMIC. I'M VERY I'M
THRILLED THAT WE GOT THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO BRING
DOWN 1.5 ADDITIONAL FUNDING ON
TOP OF THE MONEY THAT FOR THE
NEXT THREE YEARS IS GONNA COME
OUT TO LIKE ABOUT $21 BILLION
GOING TO BE ABLE TO PLAY WITH,
UM IN IN DIFFERENT. UH UH.
PROVIDER REIMBURSEMENT RATES.
SOME OF THE PROVIDER
REIMBURSEMENT RATES ALREADY
STARTED THIS YEAR, BUT IT WAS
ALREADY IN HONOR PLAN FOR MOST
OF THE INITIATIVES TO START THE
FOLLOWING YEAR IN 2025, SO THAT
IS STILL ON THE TABLE TO SEE IF
THERE'S FLEXIBILITY, WHICH I'VE
ALSO BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THAT IT
SHOULD. THERE SHOULD BE
FLEXIBILITY AND REARRANGING SOME
OF THOSE DOLLARS WITHIN THE M
èC Ó TAX, BUT GIVEN OUR BUDGET
DEFICIT RIGHT NOW. $1.5 BILLION
TO OFFSET PART OF THAT BUDGET IS
GOING TO BE IDEAL AND ALSO
UTILIZING THE EXTRA MONEY THAT
WE DIDN'T USE FOR THIS YEAR'S,
UM, THAT WE ALREADY HAD IS WE
ARE IN A VERY LUCKY SITUATION TO
BE ABLE TO TAP INTO THIS. UM AND
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT
THIS THIS MEASURE BECAUSE IF WE
DON'T SUPPORT ONE, WE'LL FIND
BILLION DOLLARS. WHERE ARE WE
GONNA ELSE ARE WE GONNA FIND
THAT? UM AND THAT'S JUST GONNA
BE EXTRA CUTS. THIS IS DOLLARS
THAT WE DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR, UM,
IN ANY OF OUR, UH PROGRAM, SO
JUST URGE YOU NOT VOTE. THANK
YOU, SENATOR. SENATOR LÀ. GREAT.
THANK YOU, UM I WAS GONNA I WAS
GONNA TRY THE SOCRATIC METHOD
HERE. QUITE SO. IF THERE'S A
HIGHER TAX. IN THIS CASE,
THERE'S A HIGHER DRAWDOWN THAT
IS GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE
AMOUNT OF THE HIGHER TAX. IS
THAT RIGHT? FOR THOSE SPECIFIC
QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO TURN TO
MY COLLEAGUE LAURA. DEPARTMENT
OF FINANCE. SORRY CAN YOU
CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? I'M
TRYING. MY QUESTION WAS CLEAR.
IF THERE IS A HIGHER TAX,
THERE'S A HIGHER DRAWDOWN THAT'S
EQUAL TO THE TAX. YES WE'RE
TAXING MÀ. I WAS JUST LOOKING
FOR THE YES. AND THE SECOND ONE
IS THE PROVIDER RATE INCREASE
THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED
BUDGET IS STILL INCLUDED IN THIS
BUDGET. YES. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS
HOPING YOU'D GET TO AND THEN
THIS WOULD KEEP US FROM HAVING
TO CUT IN BECAUSE WE'RE DRAWING
DOWN A ADDITIONAL REVENUE.
CORRECT. OK THAT'S WHAT I WANTED
TO MAKE CLEAR, GIVEN THE
QUESTIONS THAT WERE COMING
BECAUSE THAT CAME BECAUSE THIS
IS ONE OF THOSE RARE TAXES THAT
THE STAKEHOLDERS SUPPORT BECAUSE
IT BRINGS IN, UH UH, MONEY OVER
AND ABOVE. THEY'RE NOT OUT OF
POCKET. THERE'S THE FIRST
PROVIDER RATE INCREASE THAT IS
IN AGES AND THAT HAS HELD FIRM
AND THE CHOICE IS REALLY CUTTING
AND THIS PROVIDES EXTRA MONEY
INTO THIS AREA THAT KEEPS US
FROM CUTTING. AND THEN SENATOR
DOLLY AND I HAD A RATHER
ANIMATED EXCHANGE ABOUT THIS ON
THE FLOOR LAST YEAR AND LET ME
JUST REPEAT THAT WHEN THIS WAS
FIRST ENACTED, AND I HAPPENED TO
BE THE BUDGET CHAIR, AND ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER HAPPENED TO BE
THE GOVERNOR, IT WENT 100% TO
THE GENERAL FUND. AND SO THAT
WAS THE PRECEDENT AND WE'RE
SETTING A DIFFERENT PRECEDENT.
IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND TO
OFFSET BUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN
A LONG TIME, IT DOES PROVIDE A
RATE INCREASES. AND THIS HELPS
US BUDGETARILY BUT DOES NOT
CHANGE ALL THOSE UNDERLYING
FACTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE ACTUALLY
GET THROUGH SUPPORT AND OPPOSE
AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I WILL BE
HAPPY TO SUPPORT THIS. THANK
YOU, SENATOR ROTH. I'M FINE. I
THINK I WITH ALL OF THAT. I
THINK I GOT THE ANSWER TO MY
QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. CHAIR. GREAT. ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS? SENATOR DOLLY! THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR, SO JUST TO FOLLOW
UP ON SENATOR LAIRD'S COMMENTS
BUT OF THAT 1.5 BILLION THAT
GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. TELL
ME HOW THAT'S GONNA HELP OUT.
PROVIDERS OF MEDI MEDICAID AND
HOSPITALS. BECAUSE AT THE END OF
THE DAY THE DEBATE IS NOT ABOUT
DRAWING DOWN THE MONEY. I THINK
WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR. I VOTED FOR
THE M èC A Ó TAX SEVERAL TIMES
AND BUT BUT ALSO WHEN GOVERNOR
BROWN DID IT. WE NEGOTIATED TO
HELP OUR RURAL HOSPITALS THAT
WERE HAD AN A B 97 CLAWBACK THAT
WE WERE ABLE TO FUND AND SO THE
QUESTION IS, IS NOT THE DRAWDOWN
. IT'S THE QUESTION OF HOW WE'RE
SPENDING THE MONEY, SO WE'RE
PUTTING $1.5 BILLION INTO THE
GENERAL FUND. EXPLAIN HOW THAT'S
GONNA HELP HEALTH CARE BECAUSE
IT'S REALLY ABOUT HEALTH CARE AT
THE END OF THE DAY, AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT SENATOR M BAR WAS
TALKING ABOUT. IN THE LAST
REVISION. SO CAN WE TALK ABOUT
THAT 1.5 BILLION IN THE GENERAL
FUND AND HOW THAT'S GONNA HELP
HEALTH CARE COSTS AND HELP KEEP
OUR HOSPITALS OPEN AND ALL THOSE
THINGS? UM YES, SENATOR DALI. I
WOULD SAY THAT THE 1.1 0.5
BILLION IS THERE TO SUPPORT THE
MEDICAL PROGRAM SO THAT WE DON'T
HAVE TO MAKE THOSE CUTS? UM WE
HAVE AN ADDITIONAL WITH THE FULL
PROPOSAL. IT'S ACTUALLY I THINK
4.6 BILLION OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
UM THROUGH THE, YOU KNOW, MOVE.
UH, THE ADDITIONAL 1.5 BILLION
PLUS THAT THREE 0.1 BILLION IN
THE RESERVES TO SUPPORT THE
GENERAL FUND, AND IT'S
SPECIFICALLY SO THAT WE DON'T
HAVE TO MAKE CUTS, BUT I JUST
WANT TO GO BACK TO THE TO THOUGH
, IS IT CUTS TO GENERAL FUND
ISSUES? OR IS IT CUTS TO GENERAL
FUND THAT SUPPORTS HEALTH CARE?
I WOULD SAY IT'S TO SUPPORT
HEALTH CARE THAT. HOW WOULD THAT
HOW WOULD THAT HOW ARE THE
GENERAL FUND? WHERE DO WE FUND
HEALTH CARE? THAT'S THE QUESTION
THAT WE REALLY NEED TO ANSWER
HERE. BUT AND THAT'S THAT'LL BE
DETERMINED THROUGH THE BUDGET
PROCESS. THIS IS ABOUT
AUTHORIZING THE TAX. WE STILL
HAVE TO FIND THE IT'S THIS WILL
BE FOR JUNE. YEAH, WELL, MY VOTE
DEPENDS ON WHERE WE'RE GOING TO
SPEND THE MONEY. THAT'S WHY WE
HAVE A BUDGET COMMITTEE. WE
WOULD JUST WE'RE GONNA WE'RE
GONNA GO THROUGH THIS. AND SO
I'M ASKING HOW THE GENERAL IT'S
GONNA. IT'S STATED THAT THIS TAX
WILL GO TO THE GENERAL FUND. 1.5
MILLION, ACTUALLY, THREE POINT
ANOTHER THREE BILLION. ON TOP OF
THAT. HOW DOES THE GENERAL FUND
SUPPORT HEALTH CARE? BECAUSE
THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSED. I WANNA
FOCUS ON THAT. AND THAT'LL BE A
THREE PARTY CONVERSATION WITH
THIS. I DON'T GET TO BE IN THOSE
PARTIES AND I WOULD LIKE TO
KNOW. BECAUSE YOU EXCLUDE US AND
THIS IS MY OPPORTUNITY TO FIND
OUT IF I CAN SUPPORT THIS OR NOT
SUPPORT IT. IF IT'S GONNA HELP
KEEP MY RURAL HOSPITALS OPEN,
THEN I MIGHT SUPPORT IT. IF IT'S
NOT, I MAY NOT. SO I KNOW YOU'RE
GONNA THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA
WHO RUN THIS PLACE ARE GONNA
MEET WITH THE GOVERNOR AND I'M
GONNA BE FORCED TO VOTE PROBABLY
NÓ BECAUSE WE DON'T GET TO
ENGAGE. THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY
TO ENGAGE MR CHAIR, AND I'D
APPRECIATE TO LET THEM ANSWER
THE QUESTION. IF THAT'S OK.
ABSOLUTELY OK. WOULD YOU TELL ME
PLEASE? HOW THE 1.5 OR THREE 0.6
THAT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND IS
GOING TO HELP. KEEP MY HOSPITALS
OPEN AND FUND HEALTH CARE TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS. AGAIN THE 1.5
BILLION WILL GO TOWARDS THE
GENERAL FUND. THERE IS A WHOLE
CURRENTLY OF IDENTIFIED AT
GOVERNOR'S BUDGET OF 38 BILLION,
UH, WHICH MAY POTENTIALLY BE
GROWING AND SO PROVIDING THE
GENERAL FUND ASSISTANCE MEANS
THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE BUT
ELSEWHERE AND THAT IS TO HEALTH
CARE OR TO JUST CUTS ELSEWHERE
IN THE BUDGET. AND GOING TO WHAT
THE CHAIR WAS SAYING. THAT IS,
IT IS A BROADER BUDGET. BUT THIS
IS GOING SPECIFICALLY THE 1.5
BILLION. WE INTEND THAT FOR
SUPPORTING WHAT WE HAVE
COMMITTED TO AND THROUGH THE M
èC Ó. UM BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE
TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE, UH
PROVIDED 300 MIL. THREE 100
MILLION GENERAL FUND TOWARDS
DISTRESSED HOSPITALS, OF WHICH
150 MILLION WAS PART OF THIS, UM
M èC Ó DEAL. ANYTHING ELSE?
SENATOR NÓ. THANK YOU. OK THANK
YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU. AND
JUST TO STAY ON THIS POINT FOR A
MINUTE, UM CAN YOU TALK ABOUT
SOME OF THE SOME OF THE SOME OF
THE FUNDING THAT GOES TO
HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE. THAT
IS NOT PAID FOR THROUGH OUR
MEDICAL SYSTEM. SO WHAT PART OF
THE HEALTHCARE IS PAID THROUGH
BY THE GENERAL FUND AGAIN. THIS
1.05 BILLION IS GOING AND I
UNDERSTAND IT'S GOING TO THE
GENERAL FUND, BUT WE PAY FOR
SOME OF OUR HEALTH CARE NEEDS
THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND. THAT
IS CORRECT. AND I'LL I'LL TURN
THAT QUESTION TO LAURA. THANK
YOU. SO THE MEDIC BUDGET FOR
THIS FISCAL YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE,
IS ABOUT $37 BILLION GENERAL
FUND. THAT'S THE MEDICAL COST,
SO THE 1.5 BILLION IS PART OF
THAT 37 BILLION. IT ASSUMES A
1.5 BILLION, UM, IN SUPPORT OF
THE MEAL PROGRAM, SO BASICALLY
IF WE WERE NOT TO DRAW DOWN AN
ADDITIONAL 1.5 BILLION, OUR COST
WOULD GO UP. UH, FOR THE GENERAL
FUND FOR èC, UH, BY THAT SAME
AMOUNT. SO IT PAYS FOR
SPECIFICALLY THE M èC Ó TAX
WHEN IT IS NOT OUTSIDE OF THE
PROVIDER RATE INCREASES, IT
SUPPORTS THE PAYMENTS THAT ARE
MADE TO MANAGE CARE PLANS, AND
WE'RE SAYING THAT'S GOING TO THE
GENERAL FUND TO BE ABLE TO
PROVIDE THAT SUPPORT. YES
INSTEAD OF USING GENERAL FUND
AND FINDING IT WHEREVER THIS
BODY OR, UH, THE ADMINISTRATION
WOULD FIND THAT ADDITIONAL 1.5
BILLION. WE'RE PROPOSING TO DRAW
DOWN THE 1.5 BILLION AND USE
THAT INSTEAD OF GENERAL FOOD.
AND YOU UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE
MIGHT THINK THE ATTEMPT. WHAT
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THAT WE
USE THAT AS A BACKSTOP AGAINST
FURTHER CUTS TO THE HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM. WE ALSO REALIZE THE
GENERAL FUND PAYS FOR A LOT OF
THINGS. RIGHT AND TO MAKE SURE
THAT THAT 1.5 BILLION IS FOR
HEALTH CARE, AND NOT ALL THE
OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALL THE
OTHER SUBCOMMITTEES. YEAH PER
STATUTE. IT'S ONLY ALLOWED TO
SUPPORT THE MEDIC PROGRAM. UH,
PROVIDE A RATE INCREASES, UH, OR
TO REIMBURSE THE MANAGED CARE
PLANS FOR THEIR TAX OBLIGATION,
EVEN THOUGH ITS GONE GOING INTO
THE GENERAL FUND AT THIS POINT.
IT WOULD BE WHEN WE COLLECT. UM
SO TECHNICALLY, WHEN WE COLLECT
THE REVENUE, IT GOES INTO A
SPECIAL FUND. AND THAT SPECIAL
FUND IS, UH, AUTHORIZED TO, UM,
SUPPORT THE MEDICAL PROGRAM
ONLY. SENATOR ROTH. SORRY TO
BELIEVE THIS. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
NOW. YOU SAID IT WAS 37 BILLION.
THE MEDICAL PORTION OF THE
GENERAL FUND. YES PROMOTE. DOES
THAT INCLUDE THE FEDERAL MATCH
WE RECEIVE FROM MEDICAID. THE
TOTAL BUDGET IS OVER 100 AND 50
BILLION, SO THAT IS ONLY THE
GENERAL FUND. I SEE. SO THAT'S
THE 100 SOMETHING BILLION.
THAT'S FEDERAL PLUS THE STATE
MATCH. I GOT IT. SO THE 30
SOMETHING BILLION IS THE STATE
MATCH TO ME, PLUS THE WELL, IT'S
THE STATE MATCH PLUS THE
UNREIMBURSED PORTION THAT WE
HAVE TO COVER. RIGHT THE 37
BILLION ASSUMES THE ARE YOU
TALKING ABOUT? THE 1.5 BILLION
OR WHAT? AND I'M JUST TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND THE PAYMENT MECHANISM
I UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF IT'S
A FEDERALLY APPROVED PIECE, THE
FEDS PROVIDE MONEY. WE MATCH OR
PROVIDE MONEY AND THE FEDS MATCH
AND THEN THERE'S THE
UNREIMBURSED PIECE, WHICH WE
COVER, WHOLLY, PRESUMABLY OUT OF
THE GENERAL FUND. YES, OK. OK
YES, SENATOR SEO I. I JUST
NEEDED TO CLARIFY THE
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE AMOUNT
OF PARTICIPANTS IN ME IN IN OUR
BUDGET. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE
BUDGETING TO BE ABLE TO COVER IN
ME? MEDICAL CASE LOAD IS
APPROXIMATELY 15 MILLION. OK, DO
WE EXPECT IT TO GO ABOVE OR
BEYOND THAT? BECAUSE WE HAVE WE
HAVE INVITED MORE PARTICIPANTS
IN ME. AND WHAT IMPACT IS THAT
GOING TO HAVE ON THE BUDGET? IN
THE COMING MONTHS. IF THAT
EXCEEDS WHAT WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT
IT MUST BE WELL, THE OR WAS THAT
A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER THAT THEY
PICKED? ORIGINALLY THE 15
MILLION IS WHAT WE ESTIMATE IS
CURRENT CASELOAD. BUT THAT'S
DECREASING JUST BECAUSE OF, UM,
THE PEAK THAT HAPPENED DUE TO
COVID-19 ENROLLMENT. SO WE
ESTIMATE TOTAL MEDICAL
ENROLLMENT TO BE DECREASING
OVERALL IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF
INCREASES. WHAT'S THE EFFECT? IT
WOULD BE, UM, ADDITIONAL GENERAL
FUND COSTS. THANK YOU. YES,
SENATOR ALLEN. I'M JUST TRYING
TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THE LINE
OF QUESTIONING FROM SENATOR ROTH
HERE. UM, SO IT'S 100 AND 27.
BILLION TOTAL SPEND. ON ME, AND
THAT INCLUDES FEDERAL AND STATE
SOURCES. ABOUT 150 BILLION FROM
ME? YES, OK, 150, OK? AND SO AND
THEN 37 BILLION IS COMING OUT OF
THE STATE GENERAL FUND. CORRECT.
AND SO THAT 37 BILLION AND SO
AND SO AND SO THE REST IS ALL
COMING FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. THERE'S OTHER
THERE'S OTHER FUNDS, BUT MOST OF
IT IS FEDERAL FUNDS. YEAH, OK.
AND WHAT PORTION OF THE STATE
FUND IS GOING TO THE STATE
EXPENDITURE IS A COMBINATION OF
A OF SOME FORM OF MATCH, SO IT'S
NOT. IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A 5050
MATCH BECAUSE IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY
LESS THAN WHAT THE FEDS PUT IN
AND THEN PLUS THE COVERAGE FOR
UNDOCUMENTED FOLKS. IS THAT
RIGHT? CORRECT AND COULD YOU
JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW
THIS ALL FITS TOGETHER? HOW MUCH
IS GOING TO THOSE TWO
CATEGORIES? THE GENERAL FUND. 37
BILLION ESTIMATED MEDICAL
EXPENDITURES THAT INCLUDES, UM
ABOUT AT FULL IMPLEMENTATION FOR
THE UNDOCUMENTED. THE RECENT
UNDOCUMENTED EXPANSION. IS THAT
WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT THAT IS
ABOUT THREE BILLION THAT 3
BILLION THAT'S THE EXPANSION ON
TOP OF WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. FOR
THE RECENT EXPANSION FOR THE
ADULTS AGE 26 TO 49. YES. AND
THEN WHAT? WHAT WAS IT FOR THE
UM, I GUESS I'M ASKING WHAT WHAT
? WHAT PORTION OF OUR HOW HOW
MUCH OF IT ARE WE? ARE WE GIVING
AS PART OF THIS MATCH THAT
THAT'S THAT'S MATCHED BY THAT.
THAT'S PART OF OUR DEAL WITH THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. NOT NOT,
INCLUDING AND THE UNDOCUMENTED
FOLKS IN GENERAL, CALIFORNIA
RECEIVES 5050 MATCH. NOW THERE
ARE SOME SERVICES THAT RECEIVE
MORE. SOME SERVICES THAT RECEIVE
LESS, BUT IN GENERAL ARE MATCH
IS 50% FROM THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT. NOW HOW IS THAT
POSSIBLE WHEN THEY'RE PUTTING IN
YOU KNOW 100 AND 10 100 13 MÐI
BILLION AND WE'RE PUTTING IN 37.
THEN YOU GET INTO A LOT OF
EXCEPTIONS AND CAVEATS, FOR
EXAMPLE, THE A èC A OPTIONAL
EXPANSION POPULATION. WE GET 90%
FEDERAL MATCH. AND THAT'S ABOUT
4 MILLION. SO MILLION PEOPLE 4
MILLION PEOPLE. YEAH, SO THERE'S
A LOT OF A CAVEAT. THAT MUST BE
A BIG PART OF THAT THEN. YES,
IT'S OK. OK, SO, UM. CAN YOU
TELL ME HOW MUCH THE STATE IS
SPENDING PER YEAR ON? ON ON ME.
IS INVOLVED IN SOME FORM OF
FEDERAL MATCH WITH A 5050 OR
9010, OR WHAT? WHAT? WHAT IS
WHAT IS OUR PORTION OF MONEY
BEING SPENT ON ON AS PART OF A
FEDERAL MATCH PROGRAM FOR ME, I
THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW UP
ON THE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT
PERCENTAGE GETS A FEDERAL MATCH.
ANY FEDERAL MATCH VERSUS WHAT
PERCENTAGE IS STATE ONLY GENERAL
FUND. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH
YOU. OK? OK UM, THE 3 BILLION IS
FOR THE EXPANSION. WHAT? HOW
MUCH IS FOR THE, UM FOR THE
PROGRAM THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE A
FEW YEARS EARLIER FOR THE YOUNG
FOLKS IN THE SENIORS. WE CAN
FOLLOW UP AND SEE WHAT SPECIFIC
ESTIMATES WE HAVE FOR THOSE
POPULATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN FOR
THE EXPANSIONS THAT WERE
IMPLEMENTED SOME YEARS BACK. OK,
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SENATOR
BLAKESPEAR. YES THANK YOU. I
HAVE SOME, UH QUESTIONS ALONG
THE SAME LINE ABOUT THE NUMBERS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS I
UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE JUST
SAYING IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE
RECENT UNDOCUMENTED EXPANSION,
IT'S COSTING 3 BILLION MORE IS
THAT IS THAT AN ACCURATE
STATEMENT? THREE BILLION MORE
THAN BEFORE IT WAS EXPANDED. IS
THAT RIGHT? CORRECT OK, UH, BUT
THEN YOU SAID THAT IT THERE ARE
15 MILLION PEOPLE ON MEDI CAL IN
CALIFORNIA AND THAT THAT NUMBER
IS NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING OR
HASN'T CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE
RECENT UNDOCUMENTED EXPANSION OR
CAN YOU BE CLARIFY THAT HOW MANY
PEOPLE HAVE WE ADDED BECAUSE OF
THAT EXPANSION. THE ESTIMATED
THE PROJECTED TOTAL INDIVIDUALS
FOR THE EXPANSION OF 700,000,
BUT SOME OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL,
MOST OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE
ALREADY PART OF ME BECAUSE THEY
WERE RECEIVING RESTRICTED SCOPE
SERVICES. SO UM MOST OF THOSE
INDIVIDUALS ARE ALREADY WERE
ALREADY ON ME EVEN BEFORE THE
EXPANSION BUT THE ESTIMATE IS AT
APPROXIMATELY 700,000
INDIVIDUALS WILL SWITCH FROM
RESTRICTED SCOPE TO FULL SCOPE.
MEDI CAL. OK IS 700,000 THAT THE
AMOUNT THAT WE EXPECT TO BE THE
END NUMBER OR IS THAT THE NUMBER
WE'RE AT? BECAUSE IT WASN'T OPEN
ENROLLMENT PERIOD ONLY LIKE A
SIX WEEK PERIOD FROM JANUARY TO
MID FEBRUARY OR SOMETHING THAT
WAS VERY LIMITED. SO AT A HIGH
LEVEL, THE MEDICAL CASE LOAD
INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY DURING
COVID AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH
EMERGENCY HAS ENDED. SO COUNTIES
ARE NOW ARE HAVING TO
REDETERMINE ELIGIBILITY FOR ALL
INDIVIDUALS ON ME, AND THAT'S
WHY OVERALL AT A HIGH LEVEL
CASELOAD IS PROJECTED TO
DECREASE BECAUSE INDIVIDUALS UM
WILL BE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THE REDATION AND THE OPEN
ENROLLMENT FOR, UM HEALTHCARE IS
NOT RELATED TO IT DOES NOT
IMPACT THE EXPANSION BECAUSE THE
EXPANSION TOOK EFFECT IN JANUARY
. AND FOR ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS
THAT ARE ALREADY ON ME, THEY
WERE JUST AUTOMATICALLY SWITCHED
TO FULL SCOPE, EXPANSION FULL
SCOPE BENEFITS INSTEAD OF
RESTRICTED SCOPE. OK, SO WE
EXPECT THIS AT LEAST ABOUT OR
SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF
700,000 PEOPLE SIGNED UP FOR
MEDI CAL DURING THE PANDEMIC,
AND NOW ARE SOMEHOW NOT ELIGIBLE
ANYMORE. THEY MAKE MORE MONEY OR
IF YOU ARE REFERRING TO THOSE,
UM IN WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED? UH,
YES, BUT MORE THAN 2 MILLION
SIGNED UP TOTAL FOR MEDI. THE
MEDICAL CASE LOAD GREW BY MORE
THAN 2 MILLION DURING THE
PANDEMIC. OK I WASN'T TALKING
ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED I WAS TALKING
ABOUT EVERYBODY. SO MORE THAN 2
MILLION PEOPLE SIGNED UP. AND
YOU AND WE'RE SEEING THIS
ATTRITION AS THEIR, UH,
DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY OK,
BECAUSE IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT,
UH, A LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE
HAVE ALL OF A SUDDEN STARTED
MAKING SO MUCH MORE MONEY THAT
THEY DON'T QUALIFY FOR MEDI CAL.
IT'S THAT THE, UM ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA HAS IS RESTRICTED. BACK
DOWN IS THAT IS THAT ACCURATE? I
WOULD SAY THE ELIGIBILITY
CRITERIA IS THE SAME. IT'S THAT
PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS NÓ
ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS BEING
DONE DURING THE PANDEMIC THEY
WERE ON SO THERE'S ALWAYS
NATURAL ATTRITION AND THIS
ENROLLMENT FOR DIFFERENT REASONS
. AND SO IF THE NUMBERS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE RECEIVING MEDI
CAL IS NOT CHANGING THAT MUCH
FROM 15 MILLION. WHY IS IT
COSTING THREE BILLION MORE?
JASON KANTOS WITH THE LAO. SO AS
THE ADMINISTRATION NOTED, MANY
UNDOCUMENTED INDIVIDUALS WERE
ALREADY ON ME, BUT WE ARE ONLY
ELIGIBLE FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF
SERVICES, EMERGENCY RELATED
SERVICES AND PREGNANCY RELATED
SERVICES, SO THINGS LIKE OTHER
TYPES OF PRIMARY CARE AND
SPECIALTY CARE WEREN'T THEY
WEREN'T ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THAT
COVERED. THE EXPANSION MADE THEM
ELIGIBLE FOR TO HAVE THOSE COSTS
COVERED, SO IN EFFECT, UM WHILE
MANY OF THOSE PEOPLE WERE ON
MEDI CAL THEY'RE RECEIVING.
THEY'RE HAVING MORE. HEALTHCARE
SERVICES COVERED. THAT'S WHAT
PRIMARILY DRIVES THE INCREASE IN
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
EXPANSION. OK BUT I'VE HEARD THE
ARGUMENT THAT OVERALL HEALTH
CARE COSTS GO DOWN WHEN PEOPLE
HAVE, UM INSURANCE, PRIMARY CARE
INSURANCE AND PREVENTATIVE CARE.
SO ARE WE SEEING THAT AND
PROJECTING THAT IN OUR NUMBERS
AT ALL? AT MY KNOWLEDGE THAT
ESTIMATE DOES NOT FACTOR IN ANY
SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT,
AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY
ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN DONE TO
TRACK THAT INFORMATION. BUT
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT
LEGISLATURE COULD TRACK IN THE
FUTURE AS WE GET MORE
INFORMATION AND DATA ON
UTILIZATION OF SERVICES. OK, OK,
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU,
SENATOR EG. UM AND WE COULD
EXPAND COVERAGE, BUT WE STILL
NEED ACCESS. AND IF PEOPLE DON'T
HAVE PROVIDERS AND ACCESS, THEN
THEY DON'T GET THOSE
PREVENTATIVE. THINK SO. THAT'S
JUST AND I JUST AS WE'VE BEEN
BEATING THIS, UM THIS ISSUE. I
JUST WANT TO SAY MS AYALA WAS
ONE OF MY STUDENTS, SO IT IS NOT
HER LACK OF BEING PREPARED MADE
HER STRUGGLE. THIS IS AN
INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED TOPIC.
THANK YOU. OK ON THAT. I DON'T
SEE ANYONE ELSE SO WE WILL NOW
MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. UH, FOR
ANYONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE A
COMMENT. YOU CAN LINE UP, UH, BY
BEHIND THE MICROPHONE, AND I
WOULD ASK TO KEEP YOUR COMMENT
IF YOU CAN TO ABOUT A MINUTE.
YEAH THANK YOU, MR CHAIR MEMBERS
, NICK LUOS WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF HEALTH PLANS. OUR
MEMBERS IN THE COMMERCIAL MARKET
AND PUBLIC PROGRAMS ARE THE ONES
THAT ARE PAYING THE TAX AND WILL
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISTRIBUTING
THE ASSOCIATED TARGETED RATE
INCREASES. WE SUPPORTED THE DEAL
LAST YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS
AFFORDABLE TO PREMIUM PAYERS.
AND UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE FINALLY
SEEING AN M èC Ó TAX USED TO
SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT THE
RESOURCES IN THE MEDICAL PROGRAM
, SO IT WAS GOING TO, UM
INCREASE PRO PROVIDE PRIMARY
CARE, SPECIALTY CARE AND THE
LIKE, UH, WE'RE PLEASED THAT THE
BUDGET IS HONORING THOSE
SPENDING COMMITMENTS AND WE'RE
ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF THE BUDGET
PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE MEDI
MANAGED CARE COMPONENT OF THE M
èC TAX TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL
REVENUE DURING THIS BUDGET
CRISIS. AT THE SAME TIME, WE DO
URGE LEGISLATURE TO ENSURE THAT
THE M èC Ó TAX FUNDS BE
DIRECTED TO THE DELIVERY SYSTEM
AS INTENDED IN LAST YEAR'S DEAL,
AND NOT TO PROGRAM AREAS
UNINTENDED BY LAST YEAR'S BUDGET
AND WERE MULTIPLE SEPARATE
FUNDING SOURCES ALREADY EXIST,
AND OUR MEMBERS ARE CURRENTLY
WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES TO TRY TO
AFFECT THOSE TARGETED RATE
INCREASES AS WE SPEAK, AND WE
LOOK FORWARD TO FURTHER
DISCUSSIONS ON THAT MATTER.
THANK YOU. NEXT SPEAKER. GOOD
AFTERNOON, LINDA WAY WITH
WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND
POVERTY. WE SUPPORT A LARGER
ACCELERATED M èC TAX, WHICH
BRINGS SIGNIFICANT NEEDED
REVENUE, UM, THAT THAT SHOULD BE
USED TO PROTECT THE SAFETY NET
THAT LOW INCOME CALIFORNIANS
DESPERATELY RELY ON. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT? OK
SEEING NINE PUBLIC COMMENT IS
CLOSED. WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE. MR CHAIR, I WOULD
MOVE A B 136. OK WE HAVE A
MOTION BY SENATOR LAIRD AND THAT
IS A MOTION TO PASS EVERY 136 TO
THE SENATE FLOOR. UM ANY FINAL
DISCUSSION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY
SENATOR LAIRD. AND WITH THAT WE
WILL CALL THE ROLL. SENATORS,
BECKER Dð RAZO AS YOUR MIC IS
OFF. CALL THE ROLL. YOUR MIC WAS
OFF NÓ ONE COULD HEAR YOU OK?
SENATORS WINNER I WE ARE I NILO
AYE, A AND I BECKER BECKER. I
BLAKESPEAR BLAKESPEAR EYE DOLLY
DOLLY NÓ. Dð RAZO. EG. I GROVE.
LAD. AYE, LAD. I MINAR MEN.
NEWMAN. THE DEER AYE, AYE. èC R
TWO. DINNER. SMALLWOOD CUEVAS.
THAT WAS IT. MIDNIGHT. WORK. NÓ.
MEN. MEN? AYE. WHAT'S THE TOTAL?
NINE. I 9999 OK, THE CURRENT
VOTE IS 9 TO 2. WE'LL PUT THAT
ON CALL FOR ABSENT MEMBERS.
WE'RE WAITING FOR A NUMBER OF
MEMBERS, INCLUDING FROM THE
HOUSING COMMITTEE, AND WE WILL
OPEN THE ROLE WHEN THEY ARRIVE.
GONNA GO OVER. 1000.
UH, WE'RE GONNA GO INTO RECESS
UNTIL FOR MORE MEMBERS ARRIVE AT
WHICH POINT WE WILL REOPEN THE
ROLE.
CENTER GROVE IS HERE. SO LET'S
OPEN THE ROLE. THAT'S ON Tð VÆ.
OH, SORRY. GIVE ME TO WAIT.
SENATORS NILO. RAZZO GROVE. NÓ
NEWMAN. PAD. TO YARTO. DINNER.
SMALLWOOD QUAVERS. HARM. WILK.
OK WE'LL PUT IT BACK ON ROLL AND
GO BACK INTO A HOPEFULLY BRIEF
RECESS. THANK YOU NÓ PROBLEM.
SENATORS NILO DURAZO. NEW MEN.
PA. èC R Ó. SKINNER. SMALL
QUAVERS SMALL QUAVERS. I W. OK
WE'RE GONNA PUT IT BACK ON CALL
AND BRIEFLY RECESS. PROBLEM.
OK, WE'RE GONNA COME BACK FROM
RECESS. WE GOOD? OK UH, LET'S
OPEN, UH, THE ROLE AND PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS. ON
WHICH SENATORS ON THE ONE ITEM A
B 136 JUST ONE SORRY. OK, GO
AHEAD, SENATORS, NILO. DURAZO.
NEWMAN. IDEA. I èC R TWO.
SKINNER. AYE. SKINNER EYE. GREW
UP. OK WE'RE GONNA PUT IT BACK
ON CALL, UM SENATOR WILL HAVE IS
COMING BACK TO VOTE, SO LET'S GO
BACK INTO A BRIEF RECESS.
OK, WE'RE GONNA RETURN FROM
RECESS. ARE WE OK, UM, WE'RE
GONNA OPEN THE ROLL AND PLEASE
CALL THE ABSENT MEMBERS.
SENATORS NELO Dð RAZO. NEW MEN.
Tð R TO HØI WHAT HAVE I OK, AND
I UNDERSTAND THAT NÓ OTHER
MEMBERS ARE RETURNING. IS THAT
RIGHT? OK, GOOD. UH, OK, THE
EYES ARE 13 THE NOS ARE THREE.
THE MOTION PASSES. YOU GUYS AND
WITH THAT, UH, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NÓ PROBLEM.