Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Penalties topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public response as OCA proposes penalty framework up to 125% of excess growth
Summary
OCA proposed a two‑step penalty approach for exceeding spending targets (initially commensurate with excess growth, adjustable by statutory factors) and recommended a range up to 125% of the initial amount; hospitals warned that the scale could threaten access, while consumer groups urged strong enforcement.
OCA staff outlined a two‑step approach to calculating spending‑target penalties and proposed a percentage‑based range to permit escalation.
Under staff recommendations, the initial penalty would be "commensurate" with the degree an entity exceeded the spending target — effectively the dollar difference between actual and allowed growth — and OCA would then apply penalty justification factors from statute (nature/number/gravity of offenses, fiscal condition, market impact and consideration of Medi‑Cal non‑federal share) to increase or decrease the final penalty. "A percentage above 100% allows for escalating penalties as required in the law," staff said; they proposed an upper limit of 125% so the board could authorize escalation for repeat or egregious breaches.
The proposal drew strong and polarized public comment. Hospital systems warned that calculating penalties as a dollar difference could create multi‑million or even >$100M liabilities in illustrative models and cautioned that such amounts risked destabilizing safety‑net and community hospitals. "The penalty framework before you will not make health care more affordable. It will make it less available," Susan Green (Sharp HealthCare CFO) told the board, citing experience from other states and modeling that showed large illustrative penalties for her system.
Consumer groups, labor unions and advocacy organizations pushed the opposite line: penalties must be large enough to deter noncompliance and should be applied after OCA's multi‑step remediation process. Several commenters urged penalties above 100% for repeat offenders and procedural penalties for willful data obstruction.
Board members and staff discussed guardrails: OCA will consult DHCS on Medi‑Cal non‑federal share treatment and indicated penalties may be reduced based on financial condition or other statute‑listed factors. Staff also proposed procedural penalties (up to $10,000 per day for repeated failures to file acceptable PIPs or knowingly failing to provide required information and a flat penalty up to $500,000 for repeated failure to implement a PIP or knowingly falsifying information) to prevent obstruction of the enforcement process.
