Latest news with #AssemblyHealth
Politico
19-03-2025
- Business
- Politico
What the new AI report could mean for health care
We're extending the free trial through April 25 of POLITICO Pro's Technology: California Decoded newsletter, exploring how the Golden State is defining tech policy within its borders and beyond. QUICK FIX — Top health lawmaker Mia Bonta exclusively tells us her views on Newsom's expert report. — Meanwhile, one of the report's authors explains why they avoided politics where possible. — Budget watchdog asks lawmakers to rethink a $25 million CHIPS investment. Welcome to California Decoded! Happy Wednesday, there are no controversies to report. JK here we go. Send feedback, tips and story ideas to tkatzenberger@ and chasedf@ Driving the day INTERVIEW: RUBBER MEETS ROAD — Assembly Health Chair Mia Bonta sees an opportunity to make California healthier with the new AI report commissioned by Gov. Gavin Newsom's office. The Bay Area Democrat (and potential 2026 state superintendent candidate, as our Playbook colleagues report), told us the expert panel's call for greater AI model transparency highlights one of her biggest concerns: that companies are pushing AI as a replacement for health workers and stand-ins for kids seeking therapy. Bonta introduced a bill last month, AB 489, that would ban companies from marketing AI chatbots as licensed health professionals like nurses and psychologists. Her committee may soon take up another bill that would outlaw chatbots from luring in kids with addictive reward structures. And there could be more legislation to come in future sessions, she told us, aimed at wielding transparency requirements to ensure equitable care and lower hospital bills. 'The industry still has major steps to take to achieve transparency,' Bonta, whose husband Rob Bonta has also been taking on tech industry challenges as attorney general, told us. California Decoded sat down with Bonta to examine her vision for AI policy in health care. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. Are you pursuing a broad approach or a more pointed approach to regulating AI in health care? No pun intended, but I think our regulatory framework needs to be pretty surgical … I'm particularly focused right now on making sure that health care professionals are not misrepresented to vulnerable communities. Given the mental health care crisis that is happening for children right now, having them think that they are getting counsel and advice from a human being … and having, in actuality, that be an AI-generated avatar, that's a deep concern to me. Do you think the state needs to create clearer rules for how AI chatbots are allowed to market themselves, particularly to children? I do, and I think it's very complicated … We have to get very skilled in the Legislature to be able to make sure that we're providing very clear language that doesn't have unintended consequences around what we're trying to regulate. I think we were very close in the U.S. to adopting a regulatory framework that would have a robust application [to kids' safety], and now we are not in a position to be able to rely on the federal government. That context is causing California to need to step up. Is that because of President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress? It is definitely because of an attitude that does not protect humanity, doesn't protect data and privacy and doesn't protect the basis of allowing us to use science and data and research to drive our decisions. Do you see any gaps or missing perspectives in pieces of legislation dealing with kids' safety and AI? I think we always run the risk of not taking the time to hear the voices that don't have the ability to be in the room. If you take these broad conversations around AI regulation, and you are somehow not acting [on] the human components of how we need to shape this and making sure that we're focused on traditionally disenfranchised communities — like youth and low-income people and people with disabilities and people of color and BIPOC communities — you are always going to come up with the wrong answer. Are you worried about how insurance companies use AI to evaluate claims? I think it's an area of concern. We just had a briefing from the insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, and he raised this as an area of inquiry himself. Anytime that you're using large language models, you need to make sure that we're testing for bias, and certainly when your health insurance claims could be denied based on some kind of generated AI model. Is there anything under the radar that you're watching to see if it's worth tackling with future legislation, possibly next year or next session? I could imagine a world in which we are using the crazy amount of data that we have around why health care costs are so high to be able to generate some solutions that would be cost-saving to the individual. That is my pie-in-the-sky hope for how we'll proceed with legislation moving forward. HAPPENING TODAY ALL DAY — Nvidia's annual GTC conference continues in San Jose. 1:00 p.m. — The Assembly Communications and Conveyance committee holds an informational hearing on AT&T's bid to phase out its 'carrier-of-last-resort' obligation, which requires the telecom giant to provide landline phone service in parts of California where no other coverage is available. Happening tomorrow EVENT: DECODED GOES LIVE — Got a burning question to ask us? Now's your chance! We're going live tomorrow at 12 p.m. PT for POLITICO Pro subscribers in a bicoastal briefing on how Silicon Valley leaders are shaping policy debates in Washington and Sacramento — and how government officials are either advancing or obstructing their agenda. We'll touch on issues including AI regulation, data centers, privacy laws and how tariffs are impacting California's tech sector in conversation with our Washington-based colleagues Brendan Bordelon, Steven Overly and Luiza Savage. Sign up for tomorrow's briefing here. Artificial Intelligence INTERVIEW: AUTHOR'S NOTE — While Sacramento and Silicon Valley are fervently parsing the AI report commissioned by Newsom, we went to the source and asked one of the three main authors about what it is and isn't intended to do, and its potential political impacts. Jennifer Chayes is the dean UC Berkeley's College of Computing, Data Science and Society, part of the trio tasked by Newsom with putting together the report. She told California Decoded their goal was to come up with a common set of principles that could form the starting point for policy, while avoiding third rail issues like AI's impact on the labor force or its massive and growing energy use. 'I think it's a wonderful starting point now for legislation,' Chayes said. But she also said she and her coauthors were concerned about the report being politicized and misconstrued. 'It is just the nature of important conversations like this that pieces may be taken out of context and used in ways that detract from our goal,' Chayes said. While Chayes studiously avoided commenting on any pending legislation, one section of the report did sync up with state Sen. Scott Wiener's current AI safety bill. Both contain sections emphasizing the need to expand whistleblower protections for those inside AI companies to ring the alarm should a program become dangerous. AI companies may not be thrilled about the idea and the greater potential for employees to send up flares that could give away their secret sauce. But Chayes said it was a section that all the authors agreed on and which was grounded in existing scholarly work. That is an example of the authors basing their carefully-worded report on existing research to get around their findings becoming a political lightning rod. And while so far their findings have been mostly uncontroversial, not everyone is pleased. The report 'primarily urges that California wait and see — leaving lawmakers with little direction on best policies to pursue,' wrote Jonathan Mehta Stein, chair of the advocacy group California Initiative for Technology and Democracy, which last year supported Wiener's vetoed bill on AI safety, SB 1047, that ultimately prompted Newsom's creation of the expert group. But Chayes said it was probably too early to say if sweeping regulation of frontier AI model's like Wiener's prior effort is the final destination on the path laid out by her report. 'I think AI is evolving too quickly,' she said. 'You don't want to create policies that cannot adapt.' Silicon Valley IN THIS ECONOMY? — California's in no state to pig out on (computer) chips that rely on Washington's support, thanks to Trump's tariffs and 'uncertain' federal spending, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office said yesterday. As we reported for Pro subscribers yesterday, the LAO recommended that state lawmakers reject Newsom's budget request to spend $25 million on a computer chip design center proposed under the federal CHIPS Act. The money is better spent on 'more promising' development opportunities like income tax credits amid the state's 'precarious' budget outlook and Trump's federal spending clampdown, the office said. It's a dramatic announcement as the future of the CHIPS Act hangs in the balance, with Trump calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson to 'get rid' of the law during a joint address to Congress earlier this month. Congress passed the bipartisan law in 2022 to keep U.S. semiconductor manufacturing ahead of overseas competitors like China and Taiwan. But there's no guarantee lawmakers will listen to the budget wonks. Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, a Silicon Valley Democrat, told us yesterday that California should keep its $25 million commitment to the chip design facility unless federal funding is 'foolishly but formally withdrawn.' 'Backpedaling on these critical investments in technology manufacturing only serves our economic competitors and political adversaries like China,' Ahrens said in a statement. Privacy NO, SERIOUSLY, IN THIS ECONOMY?? — Assemblymember Sharon Quirk-Silva warned California's privacy watchdogs yesterday to play nice with businesses as Trump's tariffs weigh on the state's economy. The Orange County Democrat's warning came after business groups protested the California Privacy Protection Agency's consideration of potentially sweeping new AI rules at a budget subcommittee hearing yesterday. Big Tech and state business leaders fear the rules will trigger job cuts and billions of dollars in lost profits. Advocates argue the rules could grant users more control over how their information is used online. Her concerns show lawmakers are carefully considering how slumping tech stocks caused by Trump's tariffs could hit California's bottom line as they navigate the state budget process. 'We are in a very precarious time economically when we weigh what's happening with the federal government with tariffs,' Quirk-Silva told CPPA staff at the hearing. 'We need to listen to our business owners because these compounded impacts are, in fact, going to drive people out of the state unless we can do whatever we need to do to protect them.' CPPA staff told Quirk-Silva the agency is considering criticism from business groups alongside support from labor unions and data privacy advocates as it finalizes the proposed rules. The draft regulations would require businesses to scale back their use of automated tools in everything from hiring to advertising if people ask to opt out. Byte Sized — Vice President JD Vance is trying to position himself as a member of both the MAGA populists and right-leaning Silicon Valley tech elites, saying the two tribes can live in peace (POLITICO) — The Federal Trade Commission removed content critical of Amazon, Microsoft and AI companies from its website (Wired) — Employees of a federal tech unit allege they were targeted by Elon Musk in part because of their role in preventing overspending (The Intercept) Compiled by Nicole Norman Have a tip, event or creepy glimmer of empathy from an AI nurse to share? Do reach out: Emma Anderson, California tech editor; Chase DiFeliciantonio, AI and automation reporter; and Tyler Katzenberger, Sacramento tech reporter.
Yahoo
17-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawmakers acknowledge tension on gender affirming care ban, then vote to advance bill
Lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened during a tense hearing on a bill to ban gender affirming medical care and then voted along party lines to advance the bill. Rep. Lisa Subeck became emotional while speaking to her colleagues. Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner. A little over 12 hours after a tense public hearing on a resurrected bill to ban gender affirming medical care for children, lawmakers on the Assembly Health, Aging and Long-Term Care committee weighed what happened and then voted along party lines to advance the bill. AB 104 would ban gender affirming care, including prescribing puberty-blocking drugs or gender-affirming surgery, for those under 18. It would also require revocation of a medical provider's license found to be providing the care. It is the fourth bill focused on transgender youth in Wisconsin to receive a hearing over the last two weeks. 'After sitting through the hearing on this bill yesterday, I would hope some people are taking a step back and saying, wait a minute, maybe this isn't the route that we should go,' Rep. Lisa Subeck (D-Madison) said during [which day's] executive session She noted that one person at the hearing even had a 'change of heart.' Larry Jones of Milwaukee spoke about seven hours into the hearing. Sitting in front of lawmakers, he began apologizing for being there and said he was invited to the hearing to show his support for the bill. 'I have very little knowledge of gay people and things like that there, so when I came here, my eyes were opened,' he said Wednesday at around 9:12 p.m. 'I was one of the critics that sat on the side and made the decisions there was only two genders, so I got an education that was unbelievable and I don't know just exactly how to say this but my perspective for people have changed. I'd like to apologize for being here and I learned a very lot about this group of people.' Subeck, talking to her colleagues the next day, became emotional as she spoke about the committee's upcoming vote on the bill. 'The governor is going to veto [the bill]. I feel really good about that,' Subeck said. 'I don't feel so good about the fact that we're gonna have a vote here where people are gonna vote to support this.' Gov. Tony Evers vetoed a similar bill last session, and vowed to LGBTQ+ youth in January to continue vetoing any bill that 'makes Wisconsin a less safe, less inclusive, and less welcoming place.' Subeck said the bill causes harm. It is the latest in a slate of bills focused on LGBTQ+ youth introduced by Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin. The bills come as President Donald Trump has also made targeting transgender people a key point in the first couple months of his term. In a recent survey of Wisconsin LGBTQ+ youth by the Trevor Project, 91% of respondents reported that recent politics negatively impacted their well-being. Subeck pointed to the emotional testimony lawmakers heard into the night, including from Charlie Werner, a teen, who testified with his parents, Allison and Dan Werner, around 8 p.m. The family was also present in 2023 at a bill hearing and when Gov. Tony Evers vetoed the bill. Werner told lawmakers that he was dealing with depression before realizing he was dealing with gender dysphoria. He said that therapy and finding community, especially among other queer and trans people, has 'lifted' him. Werner said the gender affirming care he has received, including puberty blockers and later receiving testosterone, has helped him go 'from being so uncomfortable in my body to finally feeling a bit of clarity.' He said the care has allowed him to experience similar traits as his cisgender peers, including a lower voice. 'I finally feel like myself,' Werner said. 'Gender affirming care saved my life… I don't believe you are bad people. I simply think this is what you have been taught, but you still have the opportunity to change and make better decisions for the people that you serve.' Subeck had a similar message for her colleagues during the executive session. 'Many of you I've known for a very long time, some of us came into this Legislature together. I know that you're good people who care. I know that,' Subeck, who has served since 2014, said. 'That is why it's so bothersome to me to think … you can sit in this room and vote for this bill… We're better than that as a body. This isn't about doing what's right.' Rep. Adam Neylon (R-Pewaukee) said that he used the hearing time to listen and to learn, and pushed back on the idea that the bill is a 'judgment on trans people.' Rather, he said, the bill comes from a 'conservative approach to medical care that may be irreversible.' 'If you're accusing us of wanting to be conservative when it comes to the medical care of minors, then that is true…,' Neylon said. 'That doesn't mean we want them dead, right? That doesn't mean we don't recognize their right to exist.' However, Neylon also acknowledged that the bill may not be the exact right approach. 'It might not be hitting directly where it should and it might come across political and I understand the pain and I wanted to stay [at the hearing] to make sure that people had an opportunity to share their things…,' Neylon said. 'I would be angry if I was young too, but it's not coming from a place of saying, like trying to other them or saying, like, you don't belong in our society.' Committee Chair Rep. Clint Moses said that the hearing was beginning to become unproductive because of 'political theater' as some members were being yelled at. He had two people removed by officers from the committee room for yelling during the hearing. Throughout the hearing, there were moments of frustration for both lawmakers and members of the public who came to speak. One of those moments came a little over 6 hours and 18 minutes into the hearing when FAIR Wisconsin Executive Director Abigail Swetz finally got her opportunity to speak to lawmakers. She used her time to tell transgender youth in the state that there are 'many of us in this state who love you exactly as you are and exactly as you are becoming.' She reached the time limit before finishing her comments. Rep. Tara Johnson (D-Town of Shelby) asked if Swetz had anything she wanted to add. Moses stopped this, saying it wasn't allowed. Johnson replied that others had done the same earlier. Swetz started finishing her comments as the lawmakers went back and forth and others in the room started to clap. Moses then began banging his gavel and threatened to adjourn the meeting if the clapping continued. Moses told the committee on Thursday that he 'was ready to adjourn and just walk out because it was not productive.' He then suggested that members look at the Assembly rules again. 'The chairman of the committee has a lot of power the way it's set up, so I try not to abuse it — be a tyrant,' Moses said. 'I want to hear from everybody. I don't care if you agree with me or not. I want all perspectives in there, so I'm doing my best to do it, but yesterday it got a little much, a little much, so I think maybe dial it back on some of these with the theater.' Moses said he had to start cutting time because of the number of people who came to speak and how late the hearing was running. Johnson said the tension in the room was partially because people had been waiting so long to be heard by lawmakers. 'Some of the escalation came because they felt disenfranchised,' Johnson said. 'They felt like it was very lopsided that the pro-voices were heard at greater length, including when my colleagues also asked questions that extended testimony for very long stretches of time.' Hearings on bills focused on transgender youth have often been lengthy and emotional. Last week, a hearing on bills that would mandate how schools deal with transgender athletes and name changes lasted over 10 hours. In 2023, many showed up in opposition to a gender affirming care ban bill. The hearing Wednesday lasted nearly nine hours, but mostly supporters spoke during the first three hours of the hearing despite being vastly outnumbered by opponents. According to the record of committee proceedings, there were 79 people who appeared for the bill and 14 who appeared against, including the two bill authors. There were also 17 people who registered in favor of the bill, but didn't speak and 103 people who registered against, but didn't speak at the hearing. At one point during the hearing, Subeck asked Moses to begin alternating between supporters and opponents of the bill, but he responded by saying that was up to him. Some opponents to the bill spoke about their frustration with this when they finally got their chance to speak. 'We sit here for all this time, all these people, you're allowing the anti-trans voices to go first. It feels like the world is stacked against us and we're getting tired of it,' Cory Neeley said. 'My voice is cracking because I'm literally fuming at the fact that I've sat here all day long listening to people call me a groomer. People calling me a person who doesn't care about their children… I'm a good parent.' Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner in a call Friday that she has seen chairs put certain voices first before, but the degree to which it was done was 'unusual' and 'pretty unprecedented.' The first three hours of the hearing were mostly supporters of the bill, aside from Sens. Mark Spreitzer (D-Beloit) and Melissa Ratcliff (D-Cottage Grove). 'Committee chairs often try to, if they can, literally go back and forth, one to one,' Subeck said. 'But even if you're not literally going one for, one against, certainly front loading it so heavily when you have a room full of people there to testify against, including families with children who are going to be impacted by the bill, it certainly felt more like a tactic than a simple oversight.' Subeck noted there was some disruption during the hearing and there can be consequences for that. 'I also can't help but wonder how it could have been different if the chair had actually let some of the folks who were there to testify against the bill testify before we were already a couple of hours into the bill,' Subeck said. 'Some of the hateful rhetoric of those early testifiers was directed directly at some of those young people who were coming to testify about how this bill impacted them.' Moses told lawmakers Thursday he would take the criticism into consideration 'If there's any issues anyone has, you know, how they're running? Please come and see me,' Moses said. 'We'll try and work it out privately if I'm still doing it.' Rep. Rob Brooks (R-Saukville) acknowledged that the conversation about the issue was painful for everyone involved, but he said he thinks the conversation does need to be had. He and Rep. Patrick Snyder (R-Weston) said that an informational hearing, rather than a hearing on a bill, may have been a more 'prudent' approach for lawmakers to learn more. 'You're right, it's not going to become law,' Brooks said. 'I do think yesterday was beneficial from an educational standpoint for a lot of us, regardless of how you vote. I don't know how you can't come out of there a little richer with your knowledge on both sides. I'm going to support the bill.' The committee voted 10-5 with Republicans for and Democrats against to advance the bill, setting it up to go to the Assembly floor. Subeck told the Examiner that she was 'disappointed and frustrated and upset' Republicans voted for it, saying 'they are still putting what is truly partisan motivation… political agenda ahead of the kids and families who came and testified to us.' However, she said the conversation during the Thursday executive session did give her some hope. 'In private, legislators have a lot of conversations that don't reflect the votes that are taken on the floor, and I think the tenor of the conversation in that room was a little bit closer to the conversations that we often have when we are sitting one on one, talking to each other,' Subeck told the Wisconsin Examiner. 'It makes me a little bit hopeful, because while my Republican colleagues continue down the path of voting their party line — even when they have said they have things to learn and it gives them pause — the fact that they were willing to even sit in that room, in sort of a public sphere, and have a conversation means that there is room for change.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
