[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6195475,"mediaKeyId","3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5","parentId",3862452,"title","CalPERS asks staff to analyze SB 351’s implications for health‑facility investments","audioSeconds",1702,"startMs",8876000,"endMs",10578000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5&start=8876&end=10578","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5/thumbnail_8876000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6195475/California/CalPERS-asks-staff-to-analyze-SB-351s-implications-for-healthfacility-investments","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6195475-b04728ffff2edf89678c4c46a49a1945/orig.mp4?Expires=1773746823&Signature=UK-3rlqiY35Nn~m4UaJFHeZnKWk2ECE2VZnEVCkOyAhU2CenjSjoiptQN6hUx8rDS-QlGOU9~aRuRSIGFk1uNcOgpfHU36Edpe4UBukG-fkJWtYUfdJn-gcE1CH1nQLmvsBo1IzFNs7mC1d3zWIjZLXsHiMiQF0gjBZQPvTcNiCz6fWD1RapuYYfQSEcYoLt~qEUKNS5ZvixwkWAHEnmRzlU7KDVN2iatOA90Ylrb5KeSAAT-xzob404gDyMfWU0WjeLQqxSU8MnRH-0JpuLZXGsgzS5BvBfM2f3qkk44aKc3EfgbS5KAMZ4~kyX~MhWza9qBkkOI7sHXS-xNDDunA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","California Public Employees Retirement System","date","2025-06-19T03:39:10.28Z","article","During June board meetings, members asked staff to prepare a written analysis of Senate Bill 351 — a proposal that would limit certain private‑equity investments or require additional oversight for private‑equity ownership of health care facilities — and to provide that analysis to the full board ahead of the July off‑site.

Board discussion referenced earlier work on a related Assembly measure and a 2024 item on private‑equity ownership in health facilities. Danny Brown and staff confirmed SB 351 is out of the Senate and has been referred to an Assembly committee; they said it had not yet been scheduled for a hearing on the Assembly side. Staff committed to prepare an analysis of potential CalPERS investment‑portfolio impacts — including any effects on existing holdings, governance covenants, regulatory risk, and procurement — and to circulate the analysis to board members and include it on the July off‑site agenda for further discussion.

Board members requested the analysis evaluate scenarios where the bill becomes law and where it does not, and to include input from the investment team on legal, fiduciary and operational implications. Several members emphasized the need for a measured, evidence‑based response rather than an immediate position. Staff indicated they will coordinate with investment staff and counsel and return with a memo and recommended next steps for the board to consider at the July off‑site.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","CalPERS Board of Administration | Wednesday, June 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Board members requested staff provide an analysis of Senate Bill 351, which would restrict private‑equity control over health facilities, and to bring the results to the July off‑site for board consideration of potential CalPERS impacts.","taxTitle","California Public Employees Retirement System, Agencies under Office of the Governor, Executive, California","taxId",70079,"location","California","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6195480,"CalPERS board backs bill requiring improved provider‑directory accuracy for HMOs",350,7992000,8342000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5&start=7992&end=8342","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5/thumbnail_7992000.jpg","/articles/6195480/California/CalPERS-board-backs-bill-requiring-improved-providerdirectory-accuracy-for-HMOs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6195480-9693189af2dab2f91441b7383f96fa73/orig.mp4?Expires=1773746823&Signature=I8~BgSavkOaL5Gxu67hyirCWSzngre5INB8fpcJ2Yi-8MzaASe~ZubU5gKwoM8ygYXMoHb-rfLF~N2PI6roigBfGsXnAVOm4Fibh~9saLbR9~SI98Ds-WRc1vB27Nl7FuMwyUjBN3AAVuSxYOlgelFCibJoJb~1tRGObUsR~p6p~OEyhqc-Ofg057Kbf~H0p2Kn6FJiB4uSjOyU5wVL4uqY1nFeba7V4YQ-zUL74Y6gcuz9FEpXzJ8-50nohShMfubaoKGr8ldEAxiDHQBLyzHQZ5gdEmWWIaaveZAIdF47bjcsjWxdP0i50dOewW8U0kcwrtHI4pAoCTIwUbsnWqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The CalPERS Board on June 18 voted to adopt a support position for Assembly Bill 280, a California bill that would require health care service plans and insurers regulated in the state to verify and improve the accuracy of provider directories to specified benchmarks between 2026 and 2029.

Staff presented the bill and the recommended support position. Danny Brown, CalPERS staff, described AB 280’s principal requirement: annual verification of provider directory accuracy and staged accuracy benchmarks beginning with 60% accuracy by July 1, 2026, with a target that directories be 95% accurate by July 1, 2029. Brown said CalPERS already contractually requires plans to maintain and update directories but noted accuracy remains a persistent challenge that affects members’ ability to find in‑network providers.

Staff recommended a support position while asking the bill’s author to amend AB 280 so providers also share responsibility for maintaining accurate directories. The recommended amendment, staff said, would increase the chance the statutory accuracy goals could be met because provider participation is essential to maintaining current provider listings.

Board members asked implementation questions. Members noted the bill applies to health plans regulated by California regulators (Health Care Services Board or Department of Managed Health Care) and not to CalPERS’ self‑insured PPO product, which is not subject to the same state regulation. Staff said improved HMO directory accuracy likely also would help PPO members, because provider networks overlap.

The board approved the support position with staff’s recommended amendment language and directed staff to engage with legislative and regulatory stakeholders on implementation. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote.","CalPERS adopted a formal support position for Assembly Bill 280, which would require health plans regulated in California to improve provider‑directory accuracy to specified benchmarks; staff recommended asking the author to add provider responsibilities for accuracy.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6195485,"CalPERS board committee recommends raising CEO incentive opportunity, adjusts several statutory position ranges",613,2427000,3040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5&start=2427&end=3040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5/thumbnail_2427000.jpg","/articles/6195485/California/CalPERS-board-committee-recommends-raising-CEO-incentive-opportunity-adjusts-several-statutory-position-ranges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6195485-de2619733656ad7c53340df7c39dbec1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773746823&Signature=K0wJPgvKFT~jMrAC8h7qJIow8L4GNhZNB4NQoYnGTHh3q27bi~gd1qiXplQquOFSthsVQtjLkWUSSDltQ~882LQYOaDLNpX7Dimqs1e4MXUfCYNc9J07eDdjfLgUY9VkGen34EdpcqlCBMdaTLXBmYYsOVvOPp5D8qOUssv7t7f5Q3JwVLsqTwo43xnFursb1jDizP9HkOfxuhmJqfj~Sgnlsg70PaR~NB6UatiVSCMLK2ynqmviMWhKeiRKpd7eErJFdDdsDhDKYT7Mn3BtKHgUXT-CIZdu4DS7SeW9Hgx~998w6oV5B1LP4NUK7-6Dle2CX4fLuCj99KzrFLXImg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Performance, Compensation and Talent Management Committee on June 18 approved GGA Global Governance Advisors’ recommendations to adjust salary midpoints for several classifications covered by board compensation-setting authority and to increase the CEO’s at‑risk incentive opportunity, part of a market‑alignment review based on an updated comparator group.

Michelle Tucker, CalPERS staff, introduced the item, explaining the recommendations stemmed from McLaughlin’s market survey and GGA’s analysis. The adjustments cover selected salary midpoints for executive roles — the CEO, chief financial officer, chief actuary and chief health director — and target incentive opportunity changes for positions where gaps from the peer median were identified. GGA emphasized the changes affect salary ranges and incentive opportunity levels, not incumbent base salaries unless an incumbent falls below a new minimum range.

GGA said the largest remaining market gap was for the CEO position; the firm recommended raising the CEO’s incentive opportunity so total‑cash and total‑compensation positioning moves closer to the board‑approved peer median. In the presentation GGA noted that most of the increased positioning for the CEO would be at‑risk (incentive‑based), not guaranteed salary.

Board members asked how the committee should balance market alignment with concerns about escalating executive pay. Several members — including Treasurer Ruffino and board members who spoke during the discussion — expressed concern that repeatedly benchmarking to a peer median, especially where private‑sector comparators are included, could produce continuous increases. GGA and staff responded that prior multi‑year adjustments addressed material gaps and that bringing the CEO closer to median should reduce the need for larger adjustments in the future.

GGA and staff also described the peer group used in the analysis, noting it combines public agencies and public funds (two‑thirds weighting) with private sector comparators (one‑third), and that CalPERS remains one of the largest funds in that combined group. Board members asked about including international comparators and whether proxy‑voting positions should be reconciled with the board’s public positions on executive pay; staff said those are areas for future policy discussion.

After deliberation the committee voted to accept GGA’s compensation‑range recommendations, to adopt the updated incentive opportunity levels for the CEO (as presented), and to direct staff to update policy documents. The committee also requested additional analysis for the board on peer‑group composition and the relationship between CalPERS proxy voting positions and its own internal compensation decisions.","GGA and staff recommended and the committee approved salary midpoint adjustments for select statutory positions and an increase in the CEO’s at‑risk incentive opportunity as part of a market alignment exercise; the decision drew questions about long‑term growth of executive pay and peer group composition.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6195489,"CalPERS committee tweaks 2025–26 incentive metrics, raises total‑fund hurdle",354,1048000,1402000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5&start=1048&end=1402","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3862452-7042f6ea545c0eb782dbef71a5fb97b5/thumbnail_1048000.jpg","/articles/6195489/California/CalPERS-committee-tweaks-202526-incentive-metrics-raises-totalfund-hurdle","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6195489-f96a05886a5bb425b4f26bf77de18554/orig.mp4?Expires=1773746823&Signature=Y-9U2ZmljT6h1eJtddvZiOhxFHjwuCcn3RwbqJ8j~NveLSkEZWlvjE7znJmwIXBLzwvV8P6qXlg8-SobUriPm6NnZnKGd9BZ7VXMI3l2CcrPykqjM64JhLkVClAgXmLZDmjJfg-29LZsREsQQLReW9IZ47nOKlca9gmcwHi~ABPstjjwnCGvfbTPthq2VrHoxGwvPYgHWEoJXCKk2AM3yb625ZJQRlYcwc0y5YvLyhhgD7e3lpPbI8Ji2k6-G6hnYmNEkKkNqQT7c2fr70Gv5S3-0k-Dd-vgByyqDD-uXksTdOp6ec74T6PoCKOFKv5SToG9ke373EoqY~G~dpPSEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The California Public Employees’ Retirement System's Performance, Compensation and Talent Management Committee on June 18 approved modest changes to the fiscal year 2025–26 incentive metrics and related compensation policy updates, including a higher performance hurdle for the total‑fund metric and tighter ranges for an enterprise operational effectiveness measure.

The measures were presented by GGA Global Governance Advisors and carried on a committee motion to adopt the consultant’s recommendations. Michelle Tucker, CalPERS staff, said the changes reflect GGA’s review and the committee’s input from April 2025.

GGA told the committee it recommended raising the total‑fund investment performance hurdles (previously 0/5/10 basis points) to a higher set of thresholds, described in the presentation as moving toward 0/10/20 (an increase in performance expectations). The consultant also recommended adjusting the enterprise operational effectiveness metric by raising the minimum threshold (so the minimum for any payout is harder to reach) and lowering the top‑end maximum so the metric’s payout curve is narrower and more discriminating.

GGA said the changes were intended as “tweaks” rather than a wholesale redesign while the board considers a possible transition to a total portfolio approach. The firm also recommended that when an employee becomes incentive‑eligible — whether newly hired or promoted — that person’s investment performance be measured on the same rolling five‑year basis as incumbents, rather than be grandfathered to shorter performance windows.

Public commenters raised concerns about incentive design. JJ Jalencik of RPEA criticized the size of senior executive bonuses and urged risk‑adjusted metrics that would not reward higher risk taking. Elnora Fretwell, a state retiree, requested clarification on prorating for employees who join midyear; staff clarified that awards are prorated if a team member starts prior to six months into the plan year, and otherwise no award is paid for that year.

Committee members discussed the recommendations in the context of the possible adoption of a total portfolio approach later this year; GGA and staff said more material design changes would be appropriate should the board adopt that investment approach. The committee voted to adopt the changes as recommended by the consultant.

The committee’s action will flow into the board policy documents and the incentive plan documents for eligible executive and investment management positions, including the CEO’s plan, which the committee addressed separately during the meeting.","CalPERS Performance, Compensation and Talent Management Committee approved modest changes to fiscal year 2025–26 incentive metrics — increasing the total‑fund performance hurdle and adjusting the enterprise operational effectiveness thresholds — and confirmed a rolling five‑year measurement for new incentive‑eligible staff.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

CalPERS asks staff to analyze SB 351’s implications for health‑facility investments

CalPERS board backs bill requiring improved provider‑directory accuracy for HMOs

CalPERS board committee recommends raising CEO incentive opportunity, adjusts several statutory position ranges

CalPERS committee tweaks 2025–26 incentive metrics, raises total‑fund hurdle