CJ Howard, assistant deputy director for health care spending targets, presented a detailed proposal to enforce HCAI’s data‑submission schedule: two flat untimely penalties (an initial $10,000 and an additional $50,000 if data remain missing by Nov. 1) and a per‑member failure‑to‑submit penalty proposed at $5 per member in year one that would double in subsequent noncompliant years.

Howard explained the rationale and scale using examples: the $5 per‑member figure would average approximately $2.7 million for a typical plan and could be substantially larger for national firms (examples shown ranged up to tens of millions for the largest entities). He also described legal remedies ranging from administrative actions to licensing notifications if voluntary compliance failed.

Board members raised concerns that the $5 per‑member starting point and year‑over‑year doubling may be insufficient to induce prompt compliance; several members urged a larger initial penalty or faster escalation (for example, quarterly doubling). Member Ian Lewis said small per‑member rates with slow escalation could make noncompliance a predictable "cost of doing business," while others noted most submitters (48 of 50) had complied but emphasized the need to deter the holdouts.

Public commenters — Health Access California, the National Union of Healthcare Workers, hospitals and plans — gave differing perspectives. Advocates and union representatives called for larger, transparent, escalating penalties scaled to entity size and limited waivers, citing DMHC enforcement precedents and the risk that very large national revenues can absorb modest fines. Plans, including the California Association of Health Plans, said the industry has largely complied, asked OCA to recognize cooperative work and urged practical, transparent rules.

After robust discussion and public comment, Secretary Kim Johnson proposed tabling the penalty motion and asked staff to return in November with a revised proposal that better aligns penalty scale and timing with enforcement tools. The board accepted that direction.

What’s next: Staff will revise the per‑member and escalation proposals and return to the board in November with a new draft motion and additional analysis of legal and timing implications.