You’re on deck and in the hole. Mr. Nazarian, delight proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. First and foremost, I accept the committee’s suggested amendments. Thank you and your personnel for the magnificent work and steering on this legislation. Approximately 16% of Californians who are HIV positive do not know they are HIV positive. So, they are not receiving treatment, and they are inadequately exposing, unwittingly uncovering others. This percentage is increased to 58% for beings up to the age of 24. 20,000 Californians who do not know they are HIV positive are unintentionally motiving 70% of the new infections. In an attempt to find these someones, AB 2439 creates a voluntary pilot project to offer HIV testing in emergency situations bureaux of four infirmaries. Patients who are facing life threatening situations, as well as children under the age of 16, will not be offered an HIV testing. This legislation is conducive to the CDC’s recommendation that programme HIV testing occurs in all healthcare lays, including emergency departments.Existing law expects insurance companies to cover the cost of an HIV test in an emergency room, even if the test is unrelated to the primary diagnosis. MediCal also covers the cost of an HIV test in an emergency department. A recent analysis has found that more than two-thirds of the state Medicaid programs do cover routine HIV screening, including California. However, despite these efforts, HIV testing occurring in emergency agencies only when the patient affirmatively seeks an HIV test. AB 2439 allows us an opportunity to evaluate what HIV testing was like in an emergency room fix. >>[ INAUDIBLE] >> Thank you, thank you. I’ll finish off by saying that I understand the concerns and appreciate the opposition’s willingness to work with me on this and engage in a dialogue and with that I ask for an aye vote.I’m joined by Rand Martin on behalf of AIDS Healthcare Foundation. >> Mr. Chair, representatives, Rand Martin on behalf of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, sponsor of the bill. I would simply add that ten years ago when they last did their recommendations on HIV testing guidelines, the CDC called on disaster departments to be a primary locate for HIV testing to occur. This legislation as a pilot project will give us valuable information to determine how to go forward down that footpath. We realize Mr. Chair, your involvement and the participation of your staff members with going us to this place. And we ask for your aye election, thank you. >> Any others in aid? Opposition? Tweeners? >> Mr. Chair and members, Tim Madden representing the California chapter of American College of Emergency Physician. With the amendments taken in committee, we are removing our opposition. We just want to thank the author and patronizes for their time in working on this, as well as the Chair and his staff in all their efforts, thank you. >> Great, expressed appreciation for. >> Mr. Chair and representatives, Alex Hawthorne on behalf of the California Hospital Association.Our representatives do retain a few general concerns with the money. But at this time we are removing opponent with the committee amendments. Thank the author and the patron for working with us. >> Stewart Jones with the California Medical Association. I want to thank the committee and the author. And with the committee improvements, we remove our resist, thank you. >> Great, thank you. Any other foe? >> Good evening, Joe Michael for Equality California. We are not in opposition, but we’re likewise kind of in that in between post. We indicated onto a character with a number of other organizations indicating some amendments and have been working with the authors office, and we very much regard the opportunity to continue to work on this legislation as it moves forward and that’s about it.Thank you very much. >> Great, thank you very much. Anyone else? Opposition, in between. Okay, generating it back to members of the committee. Questions, mentions? Ms. Waldron. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is an important issue. I represent, it’s hard to believe that there’s still 5,000 new infections in California every year. And dozens daily being infected and people may not realize, they could have a test one day and then get infected the next, so you never know when that is.And people could be living a while before it shows. And by that time, it might be too late. So it’s really important to know because the spread of the community viral consignment is always there. And as “youre seeing”, beings are being infected still everyday. So I support the bill. >> Thank you. Other questions or mentions? Do we have a motion? And a few seconds? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Mr. Nazarian? >> I ask for aye vote. >> Thank you very much. So the gesture is do pass as amended to allotments. Madame Secretary, please call the roll. >> Wood? >> Aye. >> Wood, aye. Maienschein? >> Aye. >> Maienschein, aye. Bonilla, Burke, Campos, Chiu, Dababneh, Gomez, Hernandez? >> Aye. >> Hernandez, aye. Lackey? >> Not voting. >> Lackey , not electing. Nazarian? >> Aye. >> Nazarian, aye. Olsen, Patterson? >> Not voting .>> Patterson not voting. Ridley-Thomas? >> Aye. >> Ridley-Thomas, aye. Rodriguez? >> Aye. >> Rodriguez, aye. Santiago? >> Aye. >> Santiago, aye. Steinorth? >> Not electing. >> Steinorth not electing. Thurmond, Waldron? >> Aye. >> Waldron, aye. >> Thank you. >> 8-0. >> The referendum is 8-0. We’ll leave the roll open. You have one more bill Mr. Nazarian, and then Mr. Hernandez. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. First and foremost, I’m accepting that committee amendment and thank the Chair and the staff, again, for their hard work on this greenback. Thank you all. I’ll keep it very brief, highly, very brief, since I have some kinfolks who have traveled some length to be with us today .>> Please go ahead. >> Well, I’ll make it brief, but expressed appreciation for for letting me speak here. I have epilespy- >> Microphone on, delight. >> I’m sorry. Okay. So I have epilepsy and 26 other health conditions. And right now, it’s under control right now. But about seven years ago I was seizure free. And based on a decision that was not underneath my dominance , nor did I know that it existed, I received non primary narcotics, and I had various seizures in one positioning. And I purposed up not being able to speak in terminated sentences, and I became very sensitive to ignited, and hearing. And so, I still lives with that every day. And I felt very captured. And thankfully my mother in ordinance viewed the subtle gaps. So I was able to get a medical treatment right away. And so the doctor was very appalled that this happened to me, because he did mark do not substitute.Again, before this happened, I was seizure free. And I was instrumental in drive over 50 miles to and from work. And After this happened, I no longer am able to drive. I can no longer go to movies. I can’t go to sporting episodes and I can’t go to concerts with my husband or their own children, and everything I do is very calculated. And so, I thank you very much for wanting to do this bill because someone like myself that wants to be a taxpaying citizen and wants to have a normal life will be able to do so. And thankfully, I have a lot of resources and a lot of support that has helped me become more of a normal citizen. But I really insist everyone to, that when a remedy alters that they have, that they are notified like the AB 2752 it is stated. So again, I actually appreciate the continuity of care will help the quality of life for everyone and will also increase constant brain damage. And will help someone like myself actually be a wife and a baby long-term .>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Hello, I’m Liz Helms, President and CEO of the California Chronic Care Coalition. Thank you so much, Christie, for your presentation. It’s really hard because we have legends like this that came to see you us all the time. When parties have not been notified or they find out at the pharmacy counter, that their medicine has been changed. That’s not the place to find it. During open enrolment is the perfect opportunity to be able to give people the information that they need so they can stimulate informed decisions about what they need to do, what schemes they need to choose, or what supervisors that they need to talk to about their health care.We most funding this, this is a big problem. We have lots more people with similar occasions to Christie. And we ask for your aye poll. >> Thank you very much. Others in substantiate, figure and syndicate exclusively, delight? >> Jerry Jappy, represented on the California Hepatitis C Task Force, which is a member of the California Chronic Care Coalition. >> Thank you. >> Kristen Hair, Arthritis Foundation in backing. >> Thank you. >> Megan Maddox with the California Pharmacists Association, in subsidize. >> Thank you. >> Greg Hurner with California Life Sciences Association in substantiate. >> Epilepsy California representing 360,000 other shoppers like Christie, who’s my daughter-in-law, in strong carry, expressed appreciation for. >> Thank you. >> Jim Canker, papa of three lads with epilepsy, in subsistence. >> Thank you. Opposition? >> Mr. Chair and members, Nick Luisos on behalf of the California Association of Health Proposal. We’re in opposition to this proposal. Representatives, this money includes notification requirements that are weaker than existing health plan practice and requirements. Undoubtedly, health plans previously deal with this issue in a way that is better in timeline here for consumers.We believe that placing an annual notice in the rehabilitation notification as been presented by this bill will be counter-productive. And this will have little, if any practical impact. Now, there’s been talk about committee improvements, we haven’t seen all official languages. We found out today at like 2 or 3 o’clock that there exists amendments being proposed to this bill. What little that we are aware of these amendments, we still think it’s an annual after the fact notification that is not tailored to users. And so we think it’ll have little practical blow, or little benefit for the consumer. We think this bill is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. If you’re supporting a invoice, you should be able to present some sort of empirical exhibit about what their own problems is, and about how your greenback intends to solve that problem. So, I’m sorry, we have to oppose this bill. I signify, it’s another one of numerous bills that diverts health plan resources towards disposal and away from direct medical care.We’re defended for that reason. >> Sandy Watkins on behalf of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies. I’ll only echo the comments of all my fellow members and we are opposed to the measure, expressed appreciation for. >> Thank you. Others in opposition? >> Chair and representatives, Loui Sanchez on behalf of Blue Shield of California, in opposition. >> Thank you. Bringing it back to members of the committee, the issues or observes? >> Go ahead, Ms. Burke, delight. >> My only question is, is that in fact accurate? >> Thank you, I was going to offer to, I don’t know of amendment proposals that we’ve offered as of today, so- >> There’s acceptance of committee amendments, I’m sorry, I don’t want again soliloquy.With your dispensation, Mr. Chair? >> Fine, go ahead. >> We were told by the sponsors today that there were major amendments to the bill. I had no idea what they’re talking about. >> I suspect the question is on the time frame, the time frame of notification, is the bill weaker than what’s currently? >> No, in fact, I wouldn’t drag anyone out to come here and speak for the statute who has all the issues that she described for a invoice that is not necessary.This is an issue that needs to be addressed, it hasn’t been addressed until now and so we need to move forward with compiling sure that no proper notifications are made >> I’m sorry, if it is then I should have been notified about a week ago that my medication that came to the counter. I got generics and I was not apprise and it wasn’t a brand-new prescription, it was a refill. And that had, do not substitute. So if I was notified in advance, that would be very entertaining, but it’s not. I signify, this is a real problem. >> I can site the reporting requirements if you’d like. >> Then it’s not being followed. >> Well, I convey, I’m sorry .>> Sorry. >> You may, please, go ahead and quote the requirement. I will say, there weren’t, to my understanding, there were no major amendments countenanced on this proposal today. So I don’t know what you’re speaking about at this site, so please but go ahead, go ahead. >> No, right now the contracts between Covered California and qualified health plans that was accepted between the plans and the exchange, is to say that the contractor, entailing the health plan, reveal give effected enrollees and their prescribing physicians 60 days written notice prior to the removal of a drug from formulary status unless it is determined that that dose must be removed for safety rationales more quickly .>> Okay, thank you. Other questions or notes at this item? Seeing none, we have a motion, we have a second, and I’ll bring it back to the committee, Secretary to call the roll. >> Wood? >> Yes, aye. >> Wood, aye. Maienschein? Bonilla? Burke? >> Aye. >> Burke, aye. Campos? Chiu? Dababneh? Gomez? >> Aye. >> Gomez, aye. Hernndez? >> Hernndez, aye. Lackey? >> Not electing. >> Lackey , not voting. Nazarian? >> Aye. >> Nazarian, aye. Olsen? Patterson? >> No. >> Patterson , no. Ridley-Thomas? >> Aye. >> Ridley-Thomas, aye. Rodriguez? >> Aye. >> Rodriguez, aye. Santiago? >> Aye. >> Santiago, aye. Steinorth? >> No. >> Steinorth , no. Thurmond? Waldron? >> Aye. >> Waldron, aye. Campos, aye, Dababneh, aye. 11 -2. >> So the flow is it’s 11 -2, the greenback is out.Mr. Hernandez, you are up. We’ll leave the[ UNKNOWN] >> I cherish it. What am I going to do? Mr. Chair and members. Assembly proposal 2436 gets consumer’s crucial information that they’re entitled to, to the cost of their prescription drug. This bill necessitates health plans and insurers to notify the enrollee of the expenses of their prescription drug being delivered. I would like to begin by accepting the three committee amendments. The California Legislature has struggled to craft policy solutions to address the high cost of pharmaceuticals for shoppers. In fact, national, this has been a tough edition to tackle, and above all, our federal government has failed.My bill is necessary for the following compelling grounds. Prescription remedies cost exorbitantly more in the United State than in other countries. A brand-new analysis by the International Health Department at Boston University find this to be especially true. The study states that very few people pay the few price for prescription medicines because they typically have some type of insurance. What we’re presenting, that even with those dismiss, they’re still paying more than in other countries. Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act has increased transparency across the healthcare system, but unfortunately , not regarding prescription drug costs.High prescription costs feign the overall cost of delivering health care. It too threatens the long-term success of the ACA, and introduces gigantic expense pressure on states and local governments. While my part has been working with the opposition and will continue to do so, tell us be clear on the benefits from this legislation. This invoice is not throwing the doors on prescription drugs pricing, it is information our ingredients is entitled to receive. Our ingredients pay for these narcotics many times over. They pay for it with the cost of ever-rising insurance premiums. They pay for it with their federal imposition dollars, of which billions go to pharmaceutical study each year. They pay for it in their jobs when they are repudiated a grow, because more and more of their wages must be redirected to healthcare cause.Too much of California’s prescription drug pricing is in a black box. Our ingredients need rate transparency and AB 2436 devotes that to them. AB 2436 backed up by a vast coalition including SEIU, California Health Access, California Labor Federation, and the Western Center on Law and Poverty. With me here today is Beth Koppel from Health Access California, and Sarah Flocks from the California Labor Federation to speak on behalf of the invoice. >> Thank you very much. >> Beth Koppel on behalf of the members of Health Access California. We’re pleased to be the sponsor of this measure. The measure that is before you will tell consumers what their cost sharing is and also what the wholesale acquisition cost of the prescription medication is. This will be helpful to buyers. As Mr. Hernandez said, Americans pay more for prescription drugs than in any other country. This information will help to shift the discussion. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair, members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. This is an important bill for our members to understand their prescription drug overheads as they increase each year and we urge your support.Thank you. >> Thank you. Mr. Chair and representatives, Seth Brown here on behalf of the Californian Teacher’s Association in strong funding. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Chair and representatives, Michelle Cabrera with SEIU California in strong reinforce. >> Thank you. >> Elizabeth Landsberg with the Western Center on Law and Poverty also in support. >> Thank you. Any others in assistance? In opposition? >> Aw man. >> Mr. Chair, and representatives, Nick Luisos, with the California association of Health Hope. We have an opposed slot on the statute in periodical. Obviously, we are only checked the amendments today that were being accepted by the authors, we’ll be discussing those.Obviously, we’re very supportive of dope pricing clarity. One of our major concerns with the bill is that it arranges the onus on the health plans to deliver the information, when we believe that the onus should be on the manufacturers to try to explain the dramatic increase in the price of drugs, both brand-new narcotics and those that have been on the market for decades. So we’ll be analyzing the new amendments with that lense in head, but at this station, we have to maintain our position of opposition, expressed appreciation for. >> Thank you, sir. Others in opposition, delight? >> Mr.Chair and representatives, Theresa Stark on behalf of Kaiser Permanente. We also were in opposition to the previous version of the invoice. We do appreciate the author and his staff listening to us and our concerns with the prior explanation, and increase the Chairman’s work on the money as well. We’re very concerned about the consequences of high-pitched treat premiums and admire the author’s interest in creating more transparency there, and we’ll look at the amendments and re-evaluate our position at that time, thank you .>> Thank you. Other opposition. Name and organisation only please. >> Stephanie Watkins, on behalf of the members of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies. We’ll be assessing the amendments but we’re still defended. >> Thank you. >> Alison Rainey with Blue Shield of California, I’ll align myself with the previous statements. >> Thank you. John Cauldron, in behalf of PCMA which is the National Trade for PBMs. We’re still looking at the amendments, but we’re still resisted. >> Thank you. >> Sherry McKee, representing California Chamber of Commerce. We revalue the author listening to our concern. Look forward looking at the amendments and hopefully running moving forward. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> – good evening, I’m Fred[ UNKNOWN] with Pharma, and we acknowledge the work of the author and the committee, peculiarly the fraction about removing the price information about international rates, expressed appreciation for. We look forward to working with the author and others on remaining language.Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Greg Hunter with the California Life Sciences Association, opposes this previous edition of the statement. >> Our colleagues were examining these amendments and regard the work of the committee and the author. >> Thank you. Are there anyone else from foe, back to the committee, the issues or remarks? Seeing none. Please close, I’m sorry. I exactly wish to thank you, Mr. Hernandez, for are concerned with us on this. Thank you very much for accepting the amendments. I foresee I’m happy to be able to support the bill going forward based on that. I just crave you to know, and we’ve had this discussion, I intend to conduct an informational hearing on the cost of drugs in an attempt to determine what factors lead to this increased cost, and demonstrates stakeholders “whos” impacted by this cost an opportunity to provide the information on how the cost have impacted them.Additionally, there is an initiative hearing in May, with respect to prescription drug cost. So there will be another opportunity to gather information at that hearing as well. So I look forward to hopefully we can work together on that. And with that, I would like to give you the opportunity to close. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, I exactly wish to thank you and your committee for work very closely with my office and stakeholders.Really appreciate the opportunity to take this piece of legislation, only a further step toward removing a little bit more light on cost on healthcare and what are some of these persuades that led to the out of control cost. Some of us, many of us come from local government or from business and see and understand that the cost of healthcare is what indeed has either led to lay offs or the incapacity for business or public sphere authority To give way for raises.It’s and area where we need to gave greater illumination, better courtesy, and enhance its understanding of, and I think this bill is again, taking one step in that direction. So, expressed appreciation for for your subsistence here today. >> Great, thank you very much. With that, we have a motion, and a few seconds. So the flow is due pass as amended to appropriations.Madame Secretary please call the roll. >> Wood. >> Aye. >> Wood, aye. Mainshine? >> Mainshine , no. Bonilla? >> Aye. >> Bonilla, aye. Burke? >> Aye. >> Burke, aye. Campos? >> Aye. >> Campos, aye. Chu?[ UNKNOWN] >> Gomez? >> Aye. >> Gomez, aye. Hernandez. >> Aye. >> Hernandez, aye. Lackey? >> No. >> Lackey , no. Nazarian? >> Aye. >> Nazarian, aye. Olson? Patterson? >> No. >> Patterson , no. Ridley-Thomas? >> Aye. >> Ridley-Thomas, aye. Rodriguez? >> Aye. >> Rodriguez, aye. Santiago? >> Aye. >> Santiago, aye. Sinort? Thurmond? Waldron. >> Your vote is at ten to three.The bill is out. We’ll leave the roll open for other members to add on. So, waiting for Mr. Chu, Mr. Chu and then Mr. Gomez. Do not push, you guys. Alright, extend, go, person, anybody. >> Good morning, – good evening, and – good evening, colleagues. Appreciate your consideration of AB 2821, which would establish the Medi-Cal Housing Program, a proposal to shift the paradigm of how our regime suffices our homeless through an opportunity created by the recent federal approval of our state’s 1115 Medi-Cal waiver. To be brief, we all know that those who are homeless often cycle not just they’re living on the streets, but through countless healthcare institutions. Homeless individuals expense our public structure approximately $3,000 a month. And we know that with the recent 1115 MediCal waver with an entirely new whole person care pilot program, this would for the first time allow federal funds to be use to wrap around services.And while our commonwealth requests to use federal MediCal dollars for rental relief was turned down, our greenback would support one-time state funding to pay for rental assistance. Also require provinces to compare MediCal costs for individuals in the Home Care Pilot Program when they were homeless versus when they’re housed in encouraging casing. I time want to thank you your consideration, and with that turn it over to our onlookers. >> Hi, – good evening. My name is Joseph Bonnywell. I’m a policy counselor-at-law with Housing California and I’m just now as a co-sponsor in support of AB 2021. We regard the assembly members leader on this legislation. I’m just going to say quickly the focus of this proposal is really to highlight the need to ensure that those who are entrenched in chronic homelessness on their streets have access to supportive housing. And access to funding to ensure long rental gives and match up with those service fundings. And also I merely want to mention that this bill has a budget piece which we’re working on to provide an initial speculation and also foresees a creation of a tool that would captivate the cost savings from moving a person out of homelessness into supportive housing and we returning that cost savings back into more housing gives for more folks who are experiencing chronic homelessness.So thank you for asking and expressed appreciation for for your funding. >> Elizabeth Landsberg with the Western Center in Lawn Poverty. California got it right in arguing that providing rental subsidies to homeless medical recipients would in fact save the state money in addition to improving health. We’re here in strong funding. Thank you. >> Great. Others in aid? Name and constitution. apparently in funding. >> – good evening, Mary Der, County Behavioral Health Association here in strong help. >> Thank you very much.Anyone else? Anyone in opposition? Seeing no one bring it back, would you like to close, Mr. Chu? >> I really want to say I’m also happy to accept the technological improvement suggested by the committee to include this committee to receive feedback later on. >> Thank you. Much revalued. >> I respectfully ask for your aye referendum at this late hour. Motioned. And I do have a motion and a second.So the gesture has due pass as amended to appropriations. Madam Secretary please call the roll. >> Wood? >> Aye. >> Wood, aye, Main shine? >> Aye. >> Main shine, aye, Bonia? >> Aye. >> Bonia, aye, Burke? >> Aye. >> Burke, aye, Campos? >> Aye. >> Campos, aye, Chu? >> Aye. >> Chu, aye, Debabne? Gomez? >> Aye. >> Gomez, aye, Hernandez? >> Aye. >> Hernandez, aye. Lackey? >> Aye. >> Lackey, aye? Nazerian? >> Aye .>> Nazerian, aye? Olson? Patterson? Ridley-Thomas? Rodriguez? >> Aye. >> Rodriguez, aye. Santiago? Steinorth? Thurman? >> Waldron? >> Aye. >> Waldron, aye. >> That is at 12 -0, so that statute is out. Mr. Gomez ?.
