
California just blew a deadline for voter-approved health care measure
California voters told lawmakers last fall that they wanted doctors to get paid more to see low-income patients. But officials for the Newsom administration blew past a federal deadline to make that happen through Medi-Cal Monday, effectively leaving millions of dollars unclaimed.
The unclaimed money is tied to Proposition 35, a ballot measure passed by 68% of voters in November. The measure committed money from a special tax on health insurance plans to increase payments to doctors and health care facilities that treat low-income patients in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program.
But first the state had to submit papers to the federal government for approval. That deadline was March 31.
Missing the deadline means that, for the first quarter of the year, doctors will not get the rate increases promised by the ballot measure. It also means that California will lose federal matching dollars intended to boost the Medi-Cal program during that time period.
The Department of Health Care Services, the agency that oversees Medi-Cal and the implementation of Prop. 35 did not respond by publication deadline to questions from CalMatters about why the state missed the funding deadline.
In recent legislative hearings, Health Care Services Director Michelle Baass stated that California's federal application was delayed by unfilled appointments on the advisory committee established by the ballot measure to oversee spending.
Enough of those appointments were filled for the committee to legally meet, but there is still one outstanding appointment. Gov. Gavin Newsom's office refused to respond to questions about why the appointment has not been made. The committee is set to meet for the first time April 14.
During a February hearing, another official for the health care services department said the agency never believed it would be feasible for the state to meet the March deadline.
The slow implementation is frustrating lawmakers and clinicians alike who say rate hikes are long overdue and necessary to increase access for Medi-Cal recipients.
Assemblymember Dawn Addis, a Democrat from Morro Bay, said in a recent hearing that Prop. 35 was 'widely popular' and she had supported it with the hope that rate increases would begin quickly.
Lawmakers have aggressively expanded Medi-Cal benefits and eligibility in the past 10 years. Today, one in three Californians get health care through the state program. But doctors say the amount they get paid to see Medi-Cal patients hasn't increased in two decades.
Addis said during the hearing that '94% of Californians now have health care coverage, but so many folks can't access providers. And what people in rural areas will point to is that providers just simply cannot afford to practice in rural areas because the reimbursement is so low.'
In a separate legislative hearing, Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson noted that even with the unfilled position, the advisory committee has a quorum and could have met to discuss Prop. 35 implementation.
'This was something the voters were very, very clear about…I don't think the residents would like for us to delay,' said Weber Pierson, a Democrat and obstetrician from San Diego. 'It is extremely unfortunate that we will not be able to meet that first deadline and that we are just leaving funds on the table.'
Medi-Cal shortfall as costs increase
The missed deadline comes at a time when California is confronting other Medi-Cal challenges. The state is bracing for potential federal funding cuts that are tied to budget agreements moving through Congress.
And, the state program faces its own shortfall.
Newsom and the Department of Health Care Services are under increased scrutiny for requesting a $6 billion state loan to carry out Medi-Cal operations through the end of the year.
State Republican lawmakers were quick to pin the blame on Newsom's expansion of Medi-Cal access to all income-eligible immigrants who don't have permanent legal status.
The administration defended the expansion and pointed to other cost drivers such as increasing pharmacy costs and growing senior enrollment, but acknowledged that about half of the money from the deficit is from the immigrant expansion.
Newsom also blamed the Medi-Cal deficit partially on Prop. 35 in an interview with reporters earlier this month.
'Prop. 35 placed a lot of cost burdens as it relates to rates and so all those things have to be factored in. The voters chose that path with Prop 35, and we were clear, had strong opinions about it. The cost of (Prop. 35) would increase the cost of Medicaid and that's happening,' Newsom said.
Health care industry backed Prop. 35
Prior to the election, Newsom stopped short of opposing the measure but said Prop. 35's passage would limit the Legislature's ability to address future state budget deficits because it committed the money to a specific use.
Prop. 35 was backed by nearly the entire health care industry, including doctors, hospitals, clinics and ambulance companies. Those groups supported the measure in part because Newsom and past governors had previously reneged on promises to increase Medi-Cal payments and instead used the health care tax money to support general government expenses.
The proposition allocates $2 billion annually for 2025 and 2026 to the state general fund while reserving roughly another $2 billion for rate increases and other investments providers want.
Stuart Thompson, a lobbyist for the California Medical Association, which supported the measure, advocated at a March legislative hearing for the Prop. 35 committee to meet as soon as possible. Thompson noted that some payment increases that were approved separately by the Legislature in 2023 have still not been implemented and that the state needs to work to keep the ballot measure on track.
'We really want to get our bang for the buck and make sure that the way that Prop 35 is implemented really enhances the care for the most needed here in California,' Thompson said.
___
___
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


San Francisco Chronicle
16 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Newsom blasts Trump's arrest threat as ‘unmistakable step toward authoritarianism'
President Donald Trump on Monday endorsed the idea of arresting California Gov. Gavin Newsom over the state's resistance to federal immigration enforcement efforts in Los Angeles, intensifying a clash that has already drawn legal challenges and fierce rebukes from Democratic leaders. 'I would do it if I were Tom,' Trump said, referring to Tom Homan, his border czar, who over the weekend suggested that state and local officials, including Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, could face arrest if they interfered with immigration raids. 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. Trump's remarks signal a sharp escalation in the administration's crackdown on sanctuary jurisdictions and a willingness to target political opponents in unprecedented ways. Newsom responded swiftly, calling Trump's words a chilling attack on American democratic norms. 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor,' Newsom wrote on X. 'This is a day I hoped I would never see in America. I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' Tensions escalated sharply after Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles following days of civil unrest related to Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The deployment marked the first time a president has federalized a state's National Guard without the governor's consent since 1965. Newsom and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced plans to sue Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, alleging the deployment was unlawful. 'Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the President's authority under the law,' Bonta said at a press conference. 'There is no invasion. There is no rebellion.' Meanwhile, David Huerta, president of SEIU California, was charged with felony conspiracy to impede an officer after his arrest during the L.A. protests. Despite the furor, legal experts note that Homan lacks the authority to arrest elected officials, and his role remains advisory. Still, Trump's rhetoric has raised alarms among critics who view his comments as part of a broader pattern of undermining democratic institutions. 'This is a preview of things to come,' Newsom warned in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen that he shared on social media. 'This isn't about L.A., per se,' the Democratic governor added. 'It's about us today, it's about you, everyone watching tomorrow. This guy is unhinged. Trump is unhinged right now, and this is just another proof point of that.' At a news conference held by lawmakers in Sacramento to discuss the protests in Los Angeles, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, said Trump's threat to arrest Newsom is a 'direct assault on democracy and an insult to every Californian.'

Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can the President Activate a State's National Guard?
President Donald Trump's mobilization of the National Guard to quell immigration-related protests in Los Angeles marks a rare—and controversial—exercise of presidential power. Trump's decision to make the deployment against the wishes of California Gov. Gavin Newsom is especially unusual. The move marks the first time in 60 years that a President has called up National Guard troops to a state without a request from its governor. Newsom confirmed he didn't ask for the mobilization, saying in a post on X on Sunday that he had formally requested that the Trump Administration rescind what he called an 'unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command.' The Democratic governor called the move 'a serious breach of state sovereignty,' and told MSNBC that he plans to file a lawsuit against the Administration. The decision to activate the National Guard came as thousands of demonstrators across Los Angeles county over the weekend protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids that targeted undocumented immigrants. While the protests had been largely peaceful, some of the demonstrations escalated: Rocks and Molotov cocktails were thrown, cars were vandalized, and law enforcement officials deployed crowd control agents including tear gas, 'flash bang' grenades, and rubber bullets. Read More: Gavin Newsom Says Trump 'Manufactured' Crisis in California, Announces Legal Challenge Over National Guard Order Though National Guard troops are typically controlled by state governors, the President does have the authority to deploy them in certain circumstances, including in response to civil unrest. It's a power that has existed in some form almost as long as the country itself, dating back to 1792, though it has been used only sparingly in the centuries since. The deployment of the National Guard in those instances has usually come at the request of state officials—thought not always. The last time a President mobilized the troops without the governor's consent was in 1965, when then-President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed National Guard troops to Alabama, without a request from the state's governor, in order to protect civil rights activists who were marching from Selma to Montgomery, according to the Brennan Center for Justice. Alabama's governor at the time, Democrat George Wallace, didn't want to use state funds to protect the demonstrators. Johnson invoked the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or in certain other situations. The Insurrection Act 'is the primary exception to the Posse Comitatus Act, under which federal military forces are generally barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities,' according to the Brennan Center for Justice. The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in 1992, when then-President George H.W. Bush called up National Guard troops to quell riots in Los Angeles that were sparked by the acquittal of the four white police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King, an unarmed Black man. Then-California Gov. Pete Wilson had requested the federal aid. Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act, but he didn't rule out the possibility of doing so in the future. 'Depends on whether or not there's an insurrection,' Trump said, responding to a reporter's question about whether he was prepared to invoke the law. 'We're not going to let them get away with it.' To mobilize the National Guard troops this weekend, he instead invoked Title 10, Section 12406 of the U.S. Code, which allows for the federal deployment of National Guard forces in limited circumstances, including if 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The provision states that the President may call the troops 'in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute those laws.' But it also states, 'Orders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States or, in the case of the District of Columbia, through the commanding general of the National Guard of the District of Columbia.' The Trump Administration's move sparked controversy, with many Democratic politicians and advocacy organizations blasting the decision. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in a post on X that deploying National Guard troops 'over the objection of California leaders is an abuse of power and a dangerous escalation.' 'It's what you would see in authoritarian states and it must stop,' she continued. Legal experts also expressed concern over the Trump Administration's actions. 'For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling,' Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New York Times. Steve Vladeck, a Georgetown University Law Center professor specializing in military justice and national security law, called the move 'alarming' in a post on his website, saying there is a possibility that putting federal authorities on the ground 'will only raise the risk of escalating violence' and that the National Guard's mobilization could be intended as a 'precursor' to justify a more aggressive deployment in the future if it fails. 'The law may well allow President Trump to do what he did Saturday night,' Vladeck wrote. 'But just because something is legal does not mean that it is wise—for the present or future of our Republic.' Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘It won't end well for Trump' if he does this amid LA protests, ex-GOP rep says
The execution of a legal method to crack down on dissent, if used by President Donald Trump amid or after current protests in Los Angeles, will not end well for the president, according to one Republican who previously served in Congress. Three days of chaos started after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested several people at a Home Depot in Paramount, a city just south of Los Angeles. Since then, protests erupted with more arrests, cars destroyed and, as the New York Times reported, reporters shot at by law enforcement. On Saturday, Trump ordered 2,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to Los Angeles without Gov. Gavin Newsom's request. In a series of posts on X, former Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a frequent critic of Trump's and someone who served on the Jan. 6 Investigative Committee in the wake of the 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, commented on the deployment and Trump not using the Insurrection Act. 'DO NOT FEDERALIZE THE GUARD,' Kinzinger wrote. 'This is absolutely wrong at this moment.' Kinzinger posted shortly after and said the National Guard has 'no ability to do law enforcement without the Insurrection Act.' 'They are essentially no longer National Guard and now are active duty federal troops with all the restrictions,' he continued. 'Only a governor can activate them for law enforcement without the Insurrection Act.' His last remark on the matter, on Sunday morning, read that 'Now, if Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, then we're in a whole new world and it won't end well for Trump.' He did not elaborate further. Trump told reporters on Sunday that the events over the weekend were a riot rather than an insurrection, thus not invoking the Insurrection Act, the Los Angeles Times reported. This act gives the president the legal power to send the military and the National Guard to suppress civil disorder. Los Angeles was the epicenter of the Insurrection Act's last usage, by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when riots broke out following the acquittals of four Los Angeles Police Department officers charged in connection with the beating of a Black man named Rodney King on Interstate 210. Newsom and Los Angeles officials slammed the Trump administration's response to the protests. The governor called out the president after Trump congratulated the National Guard before they were deployed. 'The California National Guard wasn't even deployed in Los Angeles yet when this rant was posted,' Newsom wrote in a post on X. 'Facts matter.' On Sunday night, Newsom formally requested that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth rescind the National Guard from Los Angeles. 'We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Newsom wrote in another post on X. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California." Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and the Los Angeles Police Department both described the protests as peaceful. 'We will always protect the constitutional right for Angelenos to peacefully protest,' Bass wrote on X. 'However, violence, destruction and vandalism will not be tolerated in our city and those responsible will be held fully accountable.' '[On Saturday,] demonstrations across the city of Los Angeles remained peaceful, and we commend all those who exercise their First Amendment rights responsibly,' police said in a statement. '... We will maintain a heightened readiness posture and remain ready to ensure the continued safety of our communities.' 'I don't know if I want to do this anymore': leaked audio highlights turmoil among Dems Graffiti on tank in Trump's parade calls for hanging 2 well-known Americans 'I would': Trump calls for arrest of California's Newsom amid lawsuit over National Guard in LA All Ivy League schools are supporting Harvard lawsuit — except these 2 Embassies directed to resume processing Harvard University student visas Read the original article on MassLive.