The California State Assembly Budget Committee on Thursday held an informational hearing on SB 100 and its identical companion AB 100, early‑action budget bills that would provide a multibillion‑dollar package to stabilize Medi‑Cal payments, reimburse local governments and districts affected by recent Los Angeles wildfires, and add several program‑level augmentations.

Erica Lee of the Department of Finance told the committee that "this bill includes an increase in expenditure authority of $2,800,000,000 general fund and 8,300,000,000 matching federal funds for the Medi‑Cal program." The hearing included questions from multiple Assemblymembers and comments from the Legislative Analyst's Office and stakeholder groups.

Why it matters: committee members and witnesses said the funding is intended to ensure timely payments to Medi‑Cal providers, stabilize hospitals that rely heavily on Medi‑Cal revenue, and provide one of the state's first budgetary responses to damage from the Eaton and Palisades wildfires in Los Angeles County. Committee leadership said they expect to vote on one of these early‑action bills on the Assembly floor later in the morning.

Medi‑Cal funding details and drivers

Department of Finance presenters explained that the $2.8 billion general‑fund request is ‘‘on top’’ of a $3.4 billion loan made earlier in the spring to meet cash‑flow needs. Laura Lila, Department of Finance, estimated monthly Medi‑Cal costs "between $11 billion and $15 billion per month." Finance said the combination of the $3.4 billion loan and the $2.8 billion augmentation is intended to allow the state to make timely provider payments through June of the current fiscal year.

Legislative Analyst's Office and Finance staff described several factors they said were driving higher‑than‑expected Medi‑Cal costs: increased enrollment (including a roughly 3 million increase in caseload since before the pandemic), higher pharmacy costs and high‑cost new drugs, and program expansions (including coverage changes described as expanded eligibility for certain populations). Jason Constanturos of the LAO and other LAO staff noted additional volatility from recent policy changes and a 2022 shift in pharmaceutical payment that they said makes drug price swings flow directly to the state budget.

During member questioning, the Department of Finance said it had already exercised its loan authority and does not anticipate seeking another loan. On the record, Finance said the $2.8 billion request is intended to carry the state to June; "that's correct," Finance responded when asked whether the 2.8 would carry payments through June.

Wildfire response, property‑tax backfill and other provisions

Finance summarized additional early‑action provisions tied to the Eaton and Palisades wildfires: the bill amends control sections from enacted special session bills that provided $2.5 billion for wildfire impacts and would authorize augmentations to disperse funding to Los Angeles County or cities for unmet response and recovery needs resulting from damage caused by the Eaton and Palisades fires. The bill also requires recipients to seek maximum federal reimbursements and directs that any federal reimbursements be deposited back into the general fund.

The bills would also allow the state to augment appropriations to backfill property tax revenue lost in 2024‑25 and 2025‑26 by cities, counties and independent special districts as a result of the fires. Stakeholders including the Altadena Library District and the California Special Districts Association testified in support of the property‑tax backfill language, saying the losses threatened core local services.

Other items described by Finance include: an augmentation to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) reimbursement authority (amount stated in the hearing record), a contract for an operational observer to monitor utility wildfire mitigation measures and public safety power shutoff practices, restoration of previously unencumbered nonprofit security grant funding, use of property tax postponement fund dollars for some manufactured/mobile home applications, an Administrative Procedures Act exemption for a specified farmer program allocation, reappropriation of Proposition 98 funds to the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team for local educational agency assistance, a small increase to Commission on Teacher Credentialing fund authority, and a control‑section appropriation of climate bond dollars for conservancies and a fire resiliency training center.

Clean Cars for All

Committee members asked about a $17 million augmentation from the enhanced fleet modernization subaccount to support local air districts' Clean Cars for All programs. Shai Forbes (Assembly Budget Committee staff) described the funding as targeted to five air districts with local programs (San Diego, South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Joaquin, Bay Area and Sacramento) and limited to low‑income residents (roughly 300% of federal poverty level in most districts). Finance staff said the augmentation is intended to keep those district programs operating when local funds are projected to run out.

Public comment and stakeholder perspectives

Advocates and labor representatives spoke in support of the Medi‑Cal funding. Linda Wei of the Western Center on Law and Poverty and Christine Smith of Health Access California urged full funding and protection of coverage gains; Beth Malnowski (State Controller's Office) and unions including SEIU and AFSCME emphasized program stability and the risk to hospitals that rely on Medi‑Cal revenue. The Altadena Library District testified about property tax losses after the Eaton Fire and urged inclusion of the backfill language.

What the hearing did not decide

The hearing was informational; committee members asked questions and received staff and stakeholder comment but no formal committee vote occurred during the session recorded in the transcript. Chair remarks noted that because of the Assembly floor session the hearing would adjourn no later than 9 a.m. and that the committee expected to consider a vote on at least one of the bills on the Assembly floor later that morning.

Next steps

Committee members and staff said they expect continued budget work during the May revision and future hearings; LAO and Finance staff noted forecasting uncertainty and said they would provide updated data moving toward the May revision. Several members encouraged colleagues to consult subcommittee chairs and LAO staff for more detailed inquiries.