California 2015-2016 Regular Session Status: Passed Senate

SB 33 — Medi-Cal: estate recovery.

Last action — Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Holden.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

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

This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Summary

Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid provisions. Existing federal law requires the state to seek adjustment or recovery from an individual's estate for specified medical assistance, including nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services, if the individual was 55 years of age or older when he or she received the medical assistance. Existing federal law allows the state, at its own option, to seek recovery for any items or services covered under the state's Medicaid plan. Existing state law, with certain exceptions, requires the department to claim against the estate of a decedent, or against any recipient of the property of that decedent by distribution or survival, an amount equal to the payments for Medi-Cal services received or the value of the property received by any recipient from the decedent by distribution or survival, whichever is less. Existing law provides for certain exemptions that restrict the department from filing a claim against a decedent's property, including when there is a surviving spouse during his or her lifetime. Existing law requires the department, however, to make a claim upon the death of the surviving spouse, as prescribed. Existing law requires the department to waive its claim, in whole or in part, if it determines that enforcement of the claim would result in a substantial hardship, as specified. Existing law, which has been held invalid by existing case law, provides that the exemptions shall only apply to the proportionate share of the decedent's estate or property that passes to those recipients, by survival or distribution, who qualify for the exemptions. This bill would instead require the department to make these claims only in specified circumstances for those health care services that the state is required to recover under federal law, and would define health care services for these purposes. The bill would limit any claims against the estate of a decedent to only the real and personal property or other assets the state is required to seek recovery from under federal law. The bill would delete the proportionate share provision and would delete the requirement that the department make a claim upon the death of the surviving spouse. The bill would require the department to waive its claim when the estate subject to recovery is a homestead of modest value, as defined. The bill would limit the amount of interest that is entitled to accrue on a voluntary postdeath lien, as specified. The bill would also require the department to provide a current or former beneficiary, or his or her authorized representative, upon request, with the total amount of Medi-Cal expenses that have been paid on his or her behalf that would be recoverable under these provisions, as specified. The bill would apply the changes made by these provisions only to individuals who die on or after January 1, 2016.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Ordered to inactive file on request of Assembly Member Holden.

  2. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  3. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  4. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (August 27).

  5. July 15 set for first hearing. Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 18. Noes 1.) (July 7). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. June 30 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author.

  8. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  9. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  10. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 37. Noes 0. Page 1327.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. Ordered to second reading.

  13. Read third time and amended.

  14. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  15. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 1146.) (May 28).

  16. Set for hearing May 28.

  17. May 11 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  18. Set for hearing May 11.

  19. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  20. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 434.) (March 25).

  21. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  22. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  23. Set for hearing March 25.

  24. Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

  25. From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 1.

  26. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

  • Hernandez · Primary
  • Pavley · Cosponsor

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Hernandez

Co-sponsors (1)

  • Pavley

Not signed on (120)

120 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 120 →

"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

Do pass as amended.

Passed 17 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 13000
Republican 2000
Democratic 2000
Total 17000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (17)
Member Party Vote
Eggman — Yea
Chang — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Holden — Yea
Bigelow — Yea
Bloom — Yea
Nazarian — Yea
Quirk — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Wagner — Yea
Weber — Yea
Wood — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 18 Yea · 1 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 1000
Unaffiliated 15100
Republican 2000
Total 18100
% of votes cast 95%5%0%0%
How each member voted (19)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Bonilla — Yea
Gomez — Yea
Burke — Yea
Chiu — Yea
Chávez — Nay
Nazarian — Yea
Ridley-Thomas — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Steinorth — Yea
Thurmond — Yea
Wood — Yea
Gonzalez — Yea
Roger Hernández — Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea

Official roll call →

3rd Reading

Passed 37 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 34003
Democratic 3000
Total 37003
% of votes cast 93%0%0%8%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Anderson — Yea
Block — Yea
Hernandez — Yea
Hueso — Yea
Lara — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Morrell — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting
Pavley — Yea
Roth — Yea
Cannella — Yea
Fuller — Not Voting
Galgiani — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Allen — Yea
Mitchell — Yea
De León — Yea
Runner — Yea
Hertzberg — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leno — Yea
Mendoza — Yea
Moorlach — Yea
Pan — Yea
Wolk — Yea
Hall — Yea
Hancock — Yea
Huff — Yea
Bates — Yea
Beall — Yea
Liu — Yea
Monning — Yea
Vidak — Yea
Wieckowski — Yea
Beth Gaines — Yea
Bill Berryhill — Not Voting
Mark Stone — Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass

Passed 5 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 5002
Total 5002
% of votes cast 71%0%0%29%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Beall — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Hill — Yea
Lara — Yea
Bates — Not Voting
Mendoza — Yea
Nielsen — Not Voting

Official roll call →

Placed on suspense file

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 7000
Total 7000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Bates — Yea
Lara — Yea
Nielsen — Yea
Beall — Yea
Hill — Yea
Leyva — Yea
Mendoza — Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

healthcare health-insurance
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 SB 33 do?
Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, which is administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income persons receive health care benefits. The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid provisions. Existing federal law requires the state to seek adjustment or recovery from an individual's estate for specified medical assistance, including nursing facility services, home and community-based services, and related hospital and prescription drug services, if the individual was 55 years of age or older when he or she received the medical assistance. Existing federal law allows the state, at its own option, to seek recovery for any items or services covered under the state's Medicaid plan. Existing state law, with certain exceptions, requires the department to claim against the estate of a decedent, or against any recipient of the property of that decedent by distribution or survival, an amount equal to the payments for Medi-Cal services received or the value of the property received by any recipient from the decedent by distribution or survival, whichever is less. Existing law provides for certain exemptions that restrict the department from filing a claim against a decedent's property, including when there is a surviving spouse during his or her lifetime. Existing law requires the department, however, to make a claim upon the death of the surviving spouse, as prescribed. Existing law requires the department to waive its claim, in whole or in part, if it determines that enforcement of the claim would result in a substantial hardship, as specified. Existing law, which has been held invalid by existing case law, provides that the exemptions shall only apply to the proportionate share of the decedent's estate or property that passes to those recipients, by survival or distribution, who qualify for the exemptions. This bill would instead require the department to make these claims only in specified circumstances for those health care services that the state is required to recover under federal law, and would define health care services for these purposes. The bill would limit any claims against the estate of a decedent to only the real and personal property or other assets the state is required to seek recovery from under federal law. The bill would delete the proportionate share provision and would delete the requirement that the department make a claim upon the death of the surviving spouse. The bill would require the department to waive its claim when the estate subject to recovery is a homestead of modest value, as defined. The bill would limit the amount of interest that is entitled to accrue on a voluntary postdeath lien, as specified. The bill would also require the department to provide a current or former beneficiary, or his or her authorized representative, upon request, with the total amount of Medi-Cal expenses that have been paid on his or her behalf that would be recoverable under these provisions, as specified. The bill would apply the changes made by these provisions only to individuals who die on or after January 1, 2016.
Who sponsors SB 33?
SB 33 is sponsored by Hernandez and Pavley.
What is the current status of SB 33?
This bill died with 2015-2016 Regular Session. It reached “Passed Senate” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track SB 33?
Track SB 33 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 33

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.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 33

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

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

Track this bill →