Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Medic Cal Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly debate narrows but preserves limits on Medi‑Cal for undocumented residents; advocates urge restoration
Summary
The Assembly’s legislative budget proposal delays and narrows several of the governor’s proposed cuts to Medi‑Cal but retains a proposal to charge a $30 monthly premium and to freeze or delay enrollment for certain undocumented populations, prompting extensive public comment and pushback from immigrant‑rights and health advocacy groups.
The Assembly Budget Committee’s legislative package rejects several of the governor’s most severe cuts to health programs but keeps key changes to Medi‑Cal coverage for some undocumented and non‑citizen residents. Committee members described the approach as “compassionate” yet fiscally responsible; advocates at the hearing said the changes will deny or reduce health access for vulnerable Californians.
What the package does: Committee members and staff described a modified approach to the governor’s May Revise proposals. Under the Assembly plan the state would: - Delay or narrow the implementation of some coverage reductions and program changes so the legislature has more time to consider alternatives; and - Continue a proposal to establish a monthly premium for a subset of undocumented or non‑citizen beneficiaries at $30 per month (reduced from a $100 proposal in the governor’s May Revise), producing smaller projected savings than the governor’s original plan.
Why members cited the change: Supporters in the hearing, including Assemblymember Addis (chair of Health Budget Subcommittee) and Assemblymember Jackson, said the package preserves core services — dental, women’s health and family planning, hospice, long‑term care and many programs for seniors and people with disabilities — while acknowledging fiscal constraints. Eric Lee of the Department of Finance said the Assembly plan “moves in the direction” of fiscal resiliency but achieves fewer savings than the governor’s May Revise.
Advocates’ response: Multiple public commenters and advocacy groups urged maintaining full access. Christine Smith of Health Access California called the use of immigration status to determine health coverage “deeply disappointing” and warned that “payments of any amount cause people to lose coverage.” Whitney Francis of the Western Center on Law and Poverty and other witnesses urged exemptions for hardship and warned of exclusionary effects.
Budget trade‑offs and projections: Committee staff and the Legislative Analyst’s Office explained the trade‑offs. Jason Constanturos of the LAO told members that premium proposals create two effects — revenue from premiums and potential disenrollment if people cannot or will not pay — and that the disenrollment effect is difficult to predict. Christian Griffith (Assembly Budget staff) and Dr. Jackson described the $30 premium as a legislative value judgment intended to balance fiscal savings and access.
What remains unsettled: Members and advocates noted that many elements are deferred to three‑party negotiations and that the final outcome may depend on federal funding developments. Several public witnesses asked the Assembly to restore full coverage without premiums or to add hardship exemptions.
Ending: The Assembly plan preserves many services that the governor proposed to cut but keeps a premium and access limits that advocates warn will reduce coverage for undocumented Californians; the measures will be subject to further negotiation in the coming weeks.
