California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

AB 2135 — Long-term health care facilities.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 18, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 5 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

In plain language

The bill enhances regulations for long-term health care facilities regarding resident transfers and discharges.

This bill requires long-term health care facilities to give residents at least 30 days' notice before transferring or discharging them, with specific provisions for language access. It also increases penalties for noncompliance and allows state officials to prohibit new admissions for facilities that fail to comply with decisions related to resident discharges.

What this means for you
  • Families: Families of residents will have better communication and clearer timelines regarding any transfers or discharges.
  • Healthcare: Healthcare facilities will face stricter requirements and penalties related to resident transfers and notices.

Summary

(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of health facilities, including, but not limited to, long-term health care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law requires a contract for admission to a long-term care facility to state that a resident shall not be involuntarily transferred within, or discharged from, a long-term health care facility unless the resident is given reasonable notice in writing, and transfer or discharge planning, as specified. Willful or repeated violations of the provisions relating to long-term health care facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would require long-term health care facilities to provide residents with a notice of a facility-initiated transfer or discharge at least 30 days before a resident is transferred or discharged, unless an exception applies. The bill would require the notice of transfer or discharge to be acknowledged by the signature of the resident or, if applicable, the resident's representative. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation and would make knowingly making a false verification regarding the delivery of a notice of transfer or discharge a willful violation for purposes of the criminal provision described above. The bill would require a notice of discharge or transfer to be provided to a resident and, if applicable, the resident's representative in a translated or accessible format at the same time as the written notice in English if the resident's primary language is not English or if the resident is vision impaired or blind, as specified. The bill would also require the translated or accessible-format notices to be made available to the local long-term care ombudsman upon request. The bill would require the translator to attest, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the translation, thereby expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would require a resident's primary language or sensory impairments to be included in the minimum dataset maintained by the facility. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation. Existing law requires that a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge be sent to the local long-term care ombudsman at the same time notice is provided to the resident or the resident's representative by facsimile machine, email, or first-class mail, as specified. Existing law requires, if a resident is subject to a facility-initiated transfer to a general acute care hospital on an emergency basis, the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable. This bill would instead require the notices described above to be sent to the long-term care ombudsman by facsimile, email, or other electronic means. For emergency transfer notices, the bill would require a copy of the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 24 hours after the transfer. Because a willful or repeated violation of long-term care facilities provisions is a crime and because the crime of perjury is expanded, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Existing law, the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, requires, among other things, that long-term health care facilities timely comply with hearing decisions issued by the department's Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals for improperly transferring, discharging, or refusing to readmit a resident. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a penalty of $750 for each calendar day a facility fails to comply with the hearing decision and caps aggregate penalties for each individual hearing decision at $75,000. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to prohibit the admission of new residents to a long-term health care facility upon notification that a facility has failed to timely comply with a hearing decision. The bill would require the prohibition to remain in effect until the facility has achieved compliance, the maximum aggregate of penalties have been collected, or the facility has formally sought judicial review of the hearing decision. The bill would increase the daily penalty described above to $1,000 for each calendar day and increase the maximum aggregate penalty amount to $100,000. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

  3. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. Withdrawn from committee.

  5. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  6. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 24).

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  8. Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.

  9. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  10. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 1. Page 5049.)

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 6).

  13. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  14. Read second time and amended.

  15. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 14).

  16. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  17. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

  18. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  19. From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.

  20. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 1 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Republican 1001
Total 10001
% of votes cast 91%0%0%9%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Pérez, Sasha Renée Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 68 Yea · 1 Nay · 11 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 56003
Republican 11108
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 681011
% of votes cast 85%1%0%14%
How each member voted (80)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Not Voting
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Not Voting
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Not Voting
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Nay
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Not Voting
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Not Voting
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Johnson, Natasha Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Not Voting
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Not Voting
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 12 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 10001
Republican 2002
Total 12003
% of votes cast 80%0%0%20%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Not Voting
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 12000
Republican 2002
Total 14002
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (16)
Member Party Vote
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Not Voting
Johnson, Natasha Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 2135 do?
(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of health facilities, including, but not limited to, long-term health care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law requires a contract for admission to a long-term care facility to state that a resident shall not be involuntarily transferred within, or discharged from, a long-term health care facility unless the resident is given reasonable notice in writing, and transfer or discharge planning, as specified. Willful or repeated violations of the provisions relating to long-term health care facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would require long-term health care facilities to provide residents with a notice of a facility-initiated transfer or discharge at least 30 days before a resident is transferred or discharged, unless an exception applies. The bill would require the notice of transfer or discharge to be acknowledged by the signature of the resident or, if applicable, the resident's representative. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation and would make knowingly making a false verification regarding the delivery of a notice of transfer or discharge a willful violation for purposes of the criminal provision described above. The bill would require a notice of discharge or transfer to be provided to a resident and, if applicable, the resident's representative in a translated or accessible format at the same time as the written notice in English if the resident's primary language is not English or if the resident is vision impaired or blind, as specified. The bill would also require the translated or accessible-format notices to be made available to the local long-term care ombudsman upon request. The bill would require the translator to attest, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the translation, thereby expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would require a resident's primary language or sensory impairments to be included in the minimum dataset maintained by the facility. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation. Existing law requires that a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge be sent to the local long-term care ombudsman at the same time notice is provided to the resident or the resident's representative by facsimile machine, email, or first-class mail, as specified. Existing law requires, if a resident is subject to a facility-initiated transfer to a general acute care hospital on an emergency basis, the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable. This bill would instead require the notices described above to be sent to the long-term care ombudsman by facsimile, email, or other electronic means. For emergency transfer notices, the bill would require a copy of the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 24 hours after the transfer. Because a willful or repeated violation of long-term care facilities provisions is a crime and because the crime of perjury is expanded, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Existing law, the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, requires, among other things, that long-term health care facilities timely comply with hearing decisions issued by the department's Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals for improperly transferring, discharging, or refusing to readmit a resident. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a penalty of $750 for each calendar day a facility fails to comply with the hearing decision and caps aggregate penalties for each individual hearing decision at $75,000. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to prohibit the admission of new residents to a long-term health care facility upon notification that a facility has failed to timely comply with a hearing decision. The bill would require the prohibition to remain in effect until the facility has achieved compliance, the maximum aggregate of penalties have been collected, or the facility has formally sought judicial review of the hearing decision. The bill would increase the daily penalty described above to $1,000 for each calendar day and increase the maximum aggregate penalty amount to $100,000. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 2135?
AB 2135 is sponsored by Kalra, Ash (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 2135?
This bill has been introduced in the Assembly. Introduced February 18, 2026. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track AB 2135?
Track AB 2135 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 2135

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 2135

Last checked for changes about 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →