BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1792|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1792
Author: Gomez (D)
Amended: 8/27/14 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE : 6-2, 6/25/14
AYES: Hernandez, Beall, De Le�n, DeSaulnier, Evans, Monning
NOES: Morrell, Nielsen
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wolk
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-0, 8/14/14
AYES: De Le�n, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NO VOTE RECORDED: Walters, Gaines
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 5/28/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Public benefits: reports on employers
SOURCE : California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
SEIU, Local 1000
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States
Council
DIGEST : This bill requires the Department of Health Care
Services (DHCS) to annually inform the Employment Development
Department (EDD) of the names and social security numbers of all
recipients of the Medi-Cal program; requires DHCS to determine
the average per-individual cost of state and federally funded
benefits provided by the Medi-Cal program and inform EDD of
these costs; defines an employer as an individual or
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
2
organization that employs 100 or more beneficiaries of the
Medi-Cal program; requires the Department of Finance (DOF) to,
after obtaining specified information from EDD, annually
transmit to the Legislature and post on the DOF Internet Web
site a report no that, among other things, identifies the 500
employers in the state with the most number of employees
enrolled in a public assistance program ranked by the number of
those employees, as specified; and establishes a January 1,
2020, sunset date.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/21/14 delete references to the
Department of Social Services (DSS) and to the Director of the
Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education, and incorporate
changes to avoid chaptering out issues with SB 1028 (Jackson)
and SB 1141 (Hancock).
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Establishes the Medi-Cal program, administered by DHCS, and,
under which qualified low-income persons receive health care
benefits.
2.Establishes the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program, under which each county distributes nutrition
assistance benefits provided by the federal government to
eligible households. In California, federal nutrition
assistance benefits are known as CalFresh.
3.Requires each county to provide cash assistance and other
social services to needy families through the California Work
Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program
using federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families block
grant program, state, and county funds. CalWORKs and CalFresh
are administered by DSS.
4.Requires the Director of EDD to permit the use of any
information in his/her possession to the extent necessary for
any of specified purposes, and to require reimbursement for
all direct costs incurred in providing any and all
information, with specified exceptions.
This bill:
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
3
1.Requires DHCS to annually inform EDD of the names and social
security numbers of all recipients of the Medi-Cal program.
2.Requires DHCS to determine the average per-individual cost of
state and federally funded benefits provided by the Medi-Cal
program and inform EDD of these costs.
3.Requires EDD to collaborate with DHCS and DSS to determine the
total average cost of state and federally funded benefits
provided to each identified employer's employees, as
specified.
4.Defines an employer as an individual or organization that
employs 100 or more beneficiaries of the Medi-Cal program.
5.Requires DOF to, after obtaining specified information from
EDD, annually transmit to the Legislature and post on its
Internet Web site a report no later than the third week of
January of each year beginning in 2016 that, among other
things, identifies the 500 employers in the state with the
most number of employees enrolled in a public assistance
program ranked by the number of those employees, as specified.
6.Requires DSS to annually determine and provide to EDD, the
percentage of individuals who are recipients of the Medi-Cal
program who are also recipients of the CalFresh program, and
the average individual CalFresh benefit for individuals who
are members of households in which at least one member is
employed.
7.States legislative findings and declarations related to public
benefit programs and the need for the state to preserve and
expand them to ensure that no Californian has to go hungry or
forego medical because he/she cannot afford these basic life
necessities.
8.Requires the Director of EDD to permit the use of specified
information in his/her possession by DOF to prepare and submit
the above-described report.
9.Prohibits an employer from discharging or in any manner
discriminating or retaliating against an employee who enrolls
in the Medi-Cal program and from refusing to hire a
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
4
beneficiary for reason of being enrolled in a public
assistance program.
10.Prohibits an employer from disclosing to any person or entity
that an employee receives or is applying for public benefits,
unless authorized by the state or federal law.
11.Contains double-jointing language to avoid chaptering out
issues with SB 1028 (Jackson) and SB 1141 (Hancock).
12.Establishes a January 1, 2020, sunset date.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Annual staff costs of at least $130,000 to collect information
and prepare the required report by DOF (General Fund).
One-time costs of about $30,000 and ongoing costs of about
$60,000 per year to match beneficiary data with employer data
by EDD (General Fund).
Ongoing costs of about $230,000 per year to analyze Medi-Cal
beneficiary data and report it by DHCS (General Fund).
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/28/14)
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO (co-source)
SEIU, Local 1000 (co-source)
United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council
(co-source)
AFSCME
California Conference of Machinists
California Conference of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Communications Workers of America, District 9
Engineers and Scientists, Local 20
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Coast Division
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
5
UDW/AFSCME Local 3930
UNITE HERE
Utility Workers Union of America, Local 132
Western Center on Law and Poverty
OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/28/14)
Agricultural Council of California
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Association for Health Services at Home
California Association of Health Underwriters
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Business Properties Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Hotel and Lodging Association
California Manufacturers and Technology Association
California Professional Association of Specialty Contractor
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
International Franchise Association
Latin Business Association
National Federation of Independent Business
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Southwest California Legislative Council
Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce
UnitedAG
Western Growers Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : This bill is co-sponsored by the
California Labor Federation, United Food and Commercial Workers,
Western States Council, and SEIU Local 1000, which state that in
2013, California had the highest number of working poor families
in the country, with more than one-third of the state's working
families are low-income, making less than 200% of the federal
poverty line. When low wages and lack of benefits leave workers
unable to make ends meet, they turn to public assistance
programs for health care, food, and other basic necessities.
Supporters argue that employers that pay low wages and offer no
benefits shift the cost of doing business onto taxpayers, and
the cost of subsidizing low-wage work is not cheap. A recent
study found that taxpayers spend $7 billion annually on public
assistance for fast food workers alone. Supporters argue that
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
6
employers that shift their costs onto taxpayers put responsible
employers at a competitive disadvantage, creating an unfair
playing field for business in the state. They also require
taxpayers to subsidize their business model, rather than
supporting responsible employers. Supporters state that, since
2006, Massachusetts has produced an annual report on which
employers have 50 or more workers enrolled in public benefit
programs. Policy makers have used the report to analyze
utilization and financing of publicly subsidized programs,
identify trends and to track the effect of policies on the use
of public programs. The annual report required by this bill
would give policymakers a deeper understanding of the causes and
sources of underemployment, poverty wages, and the economic
impacts on Californians, businesses and the state budget, would
allow for identifying trends and tracking the impact of
legislation, and can be used by legislators in a variety of ways
to inform and craft effective policies. Supporters conclude
that employers will not have to submit any documentation to the
state, and the report will use only existing state data, 24
states have released similar data, and that Massachusetts and
Missouri produce annual reports on employers with workers on
public health care programs to the public.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Chamber of Commerce
and business groups write, arguing this bill will paint a very
misleading picture about the factors that affect utilization of
benefits and the different pressures faced by employers in
different sectors of the economy, all of which could lead to
misguided legislation that further burdens California employers
without helping the working poor. Opponents argue the
requirement in this bill that the dollar amount of benefits
utilized by a particular employer's employees using the average,
per-individual cost for each type of benefit undermines the
ability to infer anything about an employers' wages or to
distinguish between employers whose employees receive only
minimal benefits in a program and those whose employees utilize
significant amounts of benefits the average, per-individual cost
is problematic because it would reflect benefits received by
unemployed individuals and disabled individuals who are likely
to need a larger benefit, thereby averaging their level of need
with the need of employed individuals, who should arguably
utilize fewer benefits. In this way, the report would
misrepresent the need of employed individuals and how much the
state is spending to provide benefits to them. Opponents argue
CONTINUED
AB 1792
Page
7
this bill would expose employers to blame for benefits received
by these individuals even though their eligibility does not
reflect employer policies. Opponents also contend this bill
ignores the impact of household size and the number of employed
adults in a household on eligibility, the measure counts
employees who are out on unpaid leave for extended periods of
time, who are therefore not working and have no income, even
though their need for public assistance does not reflect
employer policies, and the measure does not address concerns
about including seasonal workers in retail and agriculture, as
their busy seasons last longer than three months. Opponents
conclude that this bill will do nothing to drive up wages, make
health care more affordable, or otherwise improve the lives of
workers, and it could actually lead to misinformed policies that
would hurt those very individuals it seeks to help.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 52-26, 5/28/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta,
Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon, Campos, Chau,
Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Dickinson, Eggman, Fong, Frazier,
Garcia, Gatto, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Gray, Hall, Roger
Hern�ndez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lowenthal, Medina,
Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Pan, Perea, John A. P�rez, V.
Manuel P�rez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas,
Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Allen, Bigelow, Ch�vez, Conway, Dahle, Daly,
Donnelly, Fox, Beth Gaines, Gorell, Grove, Hagman, Harkey,
Jones, Linder, Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez,
Nestande, Olsen, Patterson, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Quirk-Silva, Vacancy
JL:e 8/28/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED