Can California Afford to Provide Universal Health Care Coverage?

Healthcare costsPerhaps no issue looms larger on both the state and national political stage than the question of universal health care coverage.

U.S. Presidential hopeful Kamala Harris (D) sent a shockwave through the national health care debate on Monday Jan. 28th by nonchalantly stating that she would eliminate private insurers as a necessary part of implementing “Medicare-for-all,” according to a CNN report.

Due to a firestorm of attention, most of it negative, the next day the Harris campaign walked back the previous day’s remarks in large part by stating that the candidate would also be open to more moderate health reform plans, which would preserve the private industry, according to the CNN report.

Newly elected California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) campaigned on the issue of single-payer health care and on his very first day in office unveiled a comprehensive package of reform proposals aimed at expanding state health care coverage subsidies and lowering its costs, which includes extending Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants, according to a report by the LA Times.

In an interview, Gov. Newsom told the LA Times “These are not just symbolic gestures…We’re hoping to ignite a new conversation. It’s a moral imperative, not just economic,” states the LA Time report.

But as many experts, including Gov. Newsom, have pointed out, big systemic reform to the system, such as a move to a single-payer health system, would require the unlikely support of the Trump Administration.

Newsom has done a good job of tempering expectations for single-payer health care and his proposed coverage expansions and prescription cost controls demonstrate to the his supporters and the public that he is serious about expanding coverage as well containing costs.

But the 800-pound guerilla in the universal health care conversation is where will all the money come from to provide guaranteed government financed coverage to every Californian and everyone who likely to come to California once universal health care is guaranteed by the state?

“Where do you get the extra money? This is the whole question…I don’t even get it…how do you do that?,” said former California Governor Jerry Brown (D) following a universal healthcare discussion in Washington, D.C. in a 2017 interview with the LA Times.

At the time, Gov. Brown pointed out that the overall cost of medical care in California is equal to 18% of the state’s gross domestic product, which would be about $450 billion.

“You take a problem and say I’m going to solve it by something that’s an even bigger problem, which makes no sense,” then Governor Brown said at the time, according to the LA Times report.

Gov. Newsom developed some questionable rhetoric during the 2018 campaign, where he said that the State of California cannot afford not to move to a single-payer system because health care has become such a big expense in the state.

It appears that one of the major points of disagreement between former Gov. Brown and now Governor Gavin Newsom is the question of whether the State of California can afford to move to a universal health care system, specifically a single-payer system?

More recently, other high-profile liberal Democrats have come out against single-payer health care with former Mayor of New York City and billionaire Michael Bloomberg stating that Medicare-for-all “would bankrupt us for a very long time,” according to a CNN report.

“I think we could never afford that,” Bloomberg said, addressing pin factory employees in New Hampshire. “We are talking about trillions of dollars.”

“I think you could have Medicare-for-all people who are uncovered, but that’s a smaller group,” Bloomberg said.

“But to replace the entire private system where companies provide health care for their employees would bankrupt us for a very long time,” said Bloomberg according to the CNN report, which noted that Bloomberg made the comments in response to Sen. Kamala Harris calling for an end to the private health care market.

So what does all this mean for the current universal health care debate in California?

It means that California Democrats might want to heed the advice of two of the county’s most prominent liberal Democrats—former Gov. Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg—and proceed with great caution regarding the feasibility of California going it alone on universal health care.

There is no question that the state could choose to enact a single-payer or Obamacare-type universal health care system, but the million dollar question, or trillion dollar question rather in this case, is would such a system work and be fiscally sustainable over the long-term?

As a long-time analyst of fiscal issues in California, I believe that former Gov. Jerry Brown and Michael Bloomberg are correct to point out the major challenges and risks of moving to a universal health care system—both at the state level and the federal level.

David Kersten is an independent political consultant who lives in the Bay Area. Kersten is also an adjunct professor of public budgeting at the University of San Francisco.

Newsom makes health care the centerpiece of California’s resistance to Trump

MedizinFor California under Gov. Gavin Newsom, the resistance to President Donald Trump is about health care.

Much as his predecessor Jerry Brown made climate change the state’s big challenge to Trump, Newsom has embarked on a health agenda that includes extending care to undocumented adults and direct government negotiation of drug prices.

Unlike the other 2020 candidates pushing universal health care, Newsom’s policies aren’t just theoretical Washington talk, so there’s much more at risk. If his innovations in expanding Obamacare, extending Medicaid to undocumented immigrants — itself a jab at Trump’s hard-line immigration policies — and negotiating lower drug prices work, he could emerge as a hero of the Democratic Party. His policies could be templates for candidates pushing ahead on universal health care — an aspiration shared by Democrats even if they are still divided on what specific policies to pursue and how quickly to pursue them. …

Click here to read the full article from Politico

Spending Plans Will Run Up Against Fiscal Reality

Gavin NewsomGavin Newsom was recently inaugurated as California’s 40th governor, taking over a general-fund budget that is flush with cash and a state government that is in remarkably good shape — at least superficially — from a fiscal perspective. For all his flaws, outgoing Gov. Jerry Brown left Newsom with a $15 billion surplus and a rainy day fund that is nearly full. As an added plus, the economy that is humming along even though an erratic stock market points to storm clouds on the horizon.

The big question is whether Newsom will heed Brown’s advice and govern as if there’s always a recession around the corner — or ignore the former governor’s warnings about Democratic lawmakers who always say “yes” to any “harebrained” spending scheme. Unfortunately, based on Newsom’s inaugural words, initial budget and many of his early high-level administrative appointments, the safe money is on the latter. Newsom wants to spend big.

One need not read between the lines in Newsom’s introductory words. He spelled it out clearly. Newsom pointed to Brown’s inaugural address, which quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. There was the foolish man who built a house on sand and the wise man who built it on rock. “For eight years, California has built a foundation of rock,” Newsom said. “Our job now is not to rest on that foundation. It is to build our house upon it.”

So now that the state is on solid financial footing, the new governor envisions a rapid expansion of government social programs. “We will support parents so they can give their kids the love and care they need, especially in those critical early years when so much development occurs,” Newsom said. That speaks to the $1.8 billion in early childhood programs that the new governor is touting. The term “we,” of course, refers to California’s taxpayers.

“We will launch a Marshall Plan for affordable housing and lift up the fight against homelessness from a local matter to a state-wide mission,” he added. The term “Marshall Plan” is not subtle. That was the American financial assistance program to help Western Europe rebuild after the devastation of World War II, at a cost of $100 billion in current dollars.

Continuing the metaphor of California as a home, Newsom added that “In our home, every person should have access to quality, affordable health care.” He has long advocated for some type of universal healthcare coverage (although not necessarily the single-payer system that failed to make it through the Legislature in 2017), and some of his most noteworthy aides have a background in promoting government healthcare programs.

“Everyone in California should have a good job with fair pay,” he said. “Every child should have a great school and a teacher who is supported and respected. Every young person should be able to go to college without crushing debt or to get the training they need to compete and succeed. And every senior should be able to retire with security and live at home with dignity.” Those are vague, feel-good ideas that would garner few objections. But his ideas for implementing them, such as his bidget plan for free community college, will come with a hefty price tag.

There will be plenty of time to dissect the specific policy proposals that will move forward as the legislative session gets under way. For instance, the community college idea is a particularly bad one. California community colleges already are inexpensive. Making the second year of tuition “free” (the first year already is free for first-time California students) will only clog up the classrooms with free riders, thus making it tougher for those students who are serious about getting an education to get classes and improve their job prospects.

However, the main purpose of this article is to provide a warning amid the exuberance of a new gubernatorial administration. Basically, that financial foundation might be built less on rock and more on sand than many of us would like to believe.

There’s no complaining about the size of the budget surplus and rainy day fund, but there’s more to a budget than those items. As a comprehensive new California Policy Center report from Ed Ring and Marc Joffe points out, “We estimate that California’s total state and local government debt as of 6/30/2017 totaled just over $1.5 trillion. That total includes all outstanding bonds, loans, and other long-term liabilities, along with the officially reported unfunded liability for other post-employment benefits (primarily retiree healthcare), as well as unfunded pension liabilities.” That’s a 15-percent increase from two years ago—and a number that equals 54 percent of the gross state product.

The Brown administration had done little to deal with the unfunded liabilities. Its one major pension reform law, the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act, was exceedingly modest. In the waning days of his administration, Brown’s attorneys argued before the state Supreme Court for changes in the “California Rule,” which restricts the ability of governments to reduce pension benefits going forward. That’s still unresolved and Newsom already has made clear his opposition to changes in pensions—and one of his top aides comes out of the California Labor Federation.

Bottom line: Just because the general-fund budget is in good shape does not mean that California’s overall fiscal picture is all that bright. A responsible new administration would attempt to fix those problems, which are crowding out public services at the local and state level, before engaging in a spending spree that will add to the state burden. Newsom’s early budget hits $209 billion overall and includes a grabbag of new programs, although he does send money to pay off some pension debt and is bolstering the rainy day fund.

The outgoing governor increased taxes early and often. It’s unwise to add new burdens on taxpayers, especially given that economic boom times always are followed by a bust and many Californians continue to flee the state’s high tax burden. Newsom already is proposing new fees on water and 911 service.

California’s most notorious public-policy disasters have come, counter-intuitively, during the best fiscal times, when revenues were swelling and budgets were flush with cash. The best example came in 1999, when Gov. Gray Davis signed a law that caused a pension-hiking frenzy and led directly to the state’s debt crisis. The stock market was riding high and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) promised that increasing pensions by 50 percent retroactively wouldn’t cost taxpayers a dime because market returns would cover the costs.

It didn’t cost a dime, but cost billions of dollars annually in general-fund payments and added hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed liabilities. The biggest danger to California is now a governor who believes that the state is in such great financial shape that he can start spending with wild abandon. He will not be restrained by the Legislature, which now has strong Democratic super-majorities that are itching to spend money. We don’t want to wish for an economic downturn, a stock-market crash or another busted housing bubble, but that appears to be the only hope right now to derail the coming spending train.

This column was first published by the California Policy Center.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

Federal Oversight of California Prison Health Care Continues

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

Photo credit: Michael Coghlan via Flickr

Since 2006, the federal courts have had a formal oversight role with California’s prison health care system – a result of a long history of poor care provided to inmates. A new scandal makes it seem highly unlikely that the state will regain full control of its prisons any time soon.

Sacramento-based U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller – who is the present overseer of the system – has ordered an independent investigation into allegations that the state systematically lied about the care being provided to the 30,000-plus inmates with significant mental health issues.

The allegations were detailed in a 161-page report by Dr. Michael Golding, chief psychiatrist for the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. While officials claim that mental health treatment in state prisons is much better than it used to be, Golding wrote in a 161-page whistle-blower report that fewer than half of inmates were seen within the strict time limits set after past lawsuits, and that some inmates didn’t receive treatment for months.

Golding wrote that one female inmate who wasn’t provided needed medication yanked out one of her eyeballs and then ate it.

State denies lying about mental health treatments

The state has vigorously challenged Golding’s claims since he leaked his report in October. In court filings, lawyers for the state say he often jumped to conclusions based on vague evidence. “Dr. Golding’s implication that patients languish for many months without a psychiatric contact is inaccurate,” said one document.

State lawyers also strongly opposed Mueller’s decision to name former U.S. Attorney Charles Stevens to investigate the allegations, saying it overstepped her authority and that existing prison monitors could handle a probe. They also blasted the judge’s requirement that the state pay for the investigation.

But Mueller said in appointing Stevens, she was fulfilling her responsibility in her oversight role. “The court has not merely the authority, but also the duty, to protect the integrity of the judicial process,” Mueller wrote.

She also ordered prison officials not to retaliate against Golding and other prison staffers who helped him gather information for his report.

Mueller directed Stevens to report back to her by mid-April on his findings. While a U.S. attorney in the Clinton administration, Mueller won a reputation as a hard-charging prosecutor for his role in convicting the Unabomber, Theodore John Kaczynski, and in several political corruption cases.

This isn’t the first time that the Brown administration has accused Mueller of going beyond what is allowed in her prison oversight role. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in November rejected the state’s argument that she didn’t have the authority to fine the state $1,000 a day if mentally ill inmates didn’t get timely treatment.

Mueller may hold off imposing such fines until Stevens delivers his report on the new allegations.

Three prison psychiatrists have alleged wrongdoing

Two other Corrections Department psychiatrists have made allegations about poor mental health care that were similar to Golding’s, according to a Sacramento Bee report last month. Dr. Melanie Gonzalez still works for the department and also received a protection order on her behalf from Mueller. Dr. Karuna Anand says she was fired by the agency last year after complaining about how bad conditions were at the state prison in Stockton. She is pursuing a civil lawsuit against the state.

The federal oversight of state prisons was ordered in 2006 by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson. The ruling resulted from a class-action lawsuit filed in 2001 against the state over health care in California prisons.

This article was originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Gavin Newsom and Impending Tax Increases

Gavin newsomIn his successful campaign for governor Gavin Newsom promised to advance a number of programs like universal pre-school, health care for all and education that will be costly. Where does he get the money while also considering how to reform the state’s tax system?

Shortly after the election, fellow Democrats, including Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon are also talking tax increases.

If the Democrats secure the two-thirds supermajority in the legislature required to raise taxes—which appears likely at this time—the foundation will be in place for tax increases.

In a state notable for decades as the home of tax resisters, there are signs that voters may not object. In the last few statewide elections voters have raised income and sales taxes and rejected repeal of gas taxes and extending property tax breaks.

On the local level, voters continually vote to raise numerous taxes.

How many more tax increases are in the future and where will Newsom draw the line?

Is Newsom planning on confronting Proposition 13 when the split roll appears on the 2020 ballot—a position his predecessor, Jerry Brown, avoided?

Newsom is already listening to Senator Bob Hertzberg, re-elected Tuesday, to consider an overhaul of the entire tax system that would include some form of service taxes. If Newsom wants to spend political capital on such an ambitious effort it would likely come soon.

However, Newsom has said such an effort would take time. Look for another tax reform committee to be formed—which would be the fourth such committee over the last 20 years.

Or the incoming governor could rely on Hertzberg’s connection with Nicolas Berggreun’s Think Long Committee to do the heavy lifting on formulating a tax reform plan….or cut an overall tax package deal in the legislature that could include a move on commercial property taxes.

Another question: Will tax reform venture into the difficult area of spending issues, particularly the cost of pensions?

And what happens if the economy turns sour? Are all bets off on reform…or is that the time to go for it considering California’s current tax structure was birthed in the gloom of the Great Depression.

Look for early signs on tax questions in the budget and official announcements from the governor’s office.

This article was originally published by Fox and Hounds Daily

CA Spent $4 billion on Medi-Cal for People Not Eligible

MedizinCalifornia spent $4 billion on Medi-Cal coverage between 2014 and 2017 for people who may not have been eligible for the government-funded health plan, according to a state audit released Tuesday.

Medi-Cal provides health coverage to 13.1 million Californians, approximately one-third of the state’s population. To qualify, a single adult must make less than $16,754 annually.

County workers typically determine whether someone is eligible for health coverage under Medi-Cal, then send that information to the state. But the records don’t always match up.

The audit found 453,000 beneficiaries who were marked as eligible in the state’s system, but not in the counties’ — indicating that they may not have actually been eligible for Medi-Cal. These beneficiaries may have died, moved or begun making more money and no longer qualified for Medi-Cal. …

Click here to read the full article from the Los Angeles Times

California’s Single-Payer Health Care Plan Would Be Costly and Risky

MedizinSingle-payer health care is e a major issue in California’s 2018 gubernatorial election. Democratic candidate Gavin Newsom has strongly endorsed the idea, while Republican candidate John Cox is opposed. Last year, a single-payer bill, SB 562: The Healthy California Act, passed the state Senate but was placed on hold in the Assembly.

SB 562 would replace the current health care system with a state program under which all provider claims are paid centrally with no network restrictions, deductibles, co-pays, or other limitations. One governing body would replace the current array of public and private insurers. Medicare, Medi-Cal, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) would be integrated into the new system.

Proponents of single-payer primarily tout its ability to move the state towards universal coverage. However, California is already fairly close to achieving universal coverage. The June 2017 CDC report states that only 6.8 percent of Californians are uninsured. The other 93.2 percent already have private insurance, Medi-Cal, or gained insurance through Covered California during the Affordable Care Act (ACA) expansion.

Creating a single-payer health care system would be enormously costly, time-consuming, and difficult from a political and implementation standpoint. If achieving universal coverage is the primary goal, existing insurance schemes and government programs could be expanded to cover the uninsured instead. If Medi-Cal coverage is considered insufficient, it could be enhanced without impacting other categories of insurance.

A major argument from proponents of single-payer is the claim that it saves money by eliminating profits and administrative overhead — money that is going to insurance providers. Relative to all health care costs, these amounts are quite small. Most California residents already have coverage either through the government (Medi-Cal or Medicare) or a non-profit provider (Kaiser Permanente or Blue Shield), so profits only enter into the equation for a minority of Californians. Second, SB 562 would remove incentives to control costs, eliminating managed care. As a result, provider charges would probably increase substantially, overwhelming any savings from the elimination of middlemen.

Kaiser Permanente, the nation’s largest non-profit health plan and the insurer for many Californians, is known for its high quality of care and cost-conscious decision-making. A single-payer system would eliminate managed care organizations, and with them, the years of efficiency gains made to eliminate wasteful spending and improve quality. A statement by Kaiser’s CEO last year emphasized the difference between universal coverage and single-payer, mentioning his hesitations with single payer’s outdated fee-for-service model.

Perhaps the most daunting challenge of a single-payer system is the price tag. Analyses estimate that implementing a single-payer system would cost California between $330 billion and $400 billion per year, and there are reasons to believe that these estimates are too low. To put the potential costs in perspective, the entire California state budget for 2018-2019 is $201.4 billion. SB 562 does not provide details about how funds would be raised to pay for single-payer.

Furthermore, SB 562 has no mention of cost control measures, while explicitly saying there will be no co-pays, deductibles, or premiums. It plans to cover all medically necessary care, including medical, vision, dental, hearing, and reproductive services. Other services like chiropractic care and acupuncture would also be fully covered under the new program.

Many other countries have universal health care coverage and better health outcomes than the United States, an argument frequently used in favor of single-payer. However, many of these countries utilize free-market mechanisms that promote cost-conscious decision-making. These include price transparency, fewer regulations, consumer choice, and cost-sharing to prevent overuse of services.

Aside from the fundamental problems aforementioned, there are considerable political and legal roadblocks associated with implementing a single-payer system in California. Assuming that tax increases would be a necessity for funding purposes, a key obstacle would be gaining the two-thirds vote requirement for passing any such increases in the state legislature. Other obstacles include Proposition 4 of 1979, referred to as the Gann Limit, which limits state and local appropriations. Implementation of a taxpayer-funded single-payer system would necessitate repealing the Gann Limit or exempting the new taxes from the limit. Proposition 98, passed in 1988, requires that a certain amount of state tax revenues be diverted toward education funding and taxes for a single-payer system would fall into this category. So, once again, voters would have to approve exempting these new taxes from Prop. 98.

Proponents of the single-payer system believe that the new taxes needed to fund it could be addressed in legislation without requiring voter approval. The California Budget & Policy Center sees this as “very unlikely,” since it would require amending the state Constitution. When it comes to Proposition 98, the likelihood of exempting new taxes is less clear, since it depends on differences between the General Fund and Special Fund, potentially opening the door to a lawsuit.

Much uncertainty exists about the possibility of rolling federal funding into the California Health Fund (a new fund from which the state government would pay all medical expenses). The federal government funds Medicare and most of Medi-Cal, setting or at least influencing eligibility rules. This creates a hurdle to covering undocumented immigrants; federal funds are currently not allowed to finance any of the social services provided to this population.

The combination of the political and legal complications, SB 562’s enormous price tag, and the lack of cost-control measures and long-term funding uncertainties need to be carefully considered by Californians. Vermont tried to implement a single-payer health care system in 2014 but ultimately abandoned it following a myriad of challenges. Vermont had a population of 625,000 residents at the time. California’s is home to nearly 40 million people. Increasing access to health care is a laudable goal, but changes to the system should focus on improving health care outcomes for patients and  improving the quality and affordability of care. Increasing the state government’s role in health care is unlikely to deliver those results.

This article was originally published by Reason.com

Trump Blasts Newsom’s Universal Healthcare Plan for Illegal Immigrants

trump-debatePresident Donald Trump on Friday blasted California Lieutenant Governor and gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom for supporting universal health care for illegal immigrants, asking, “What happens if the whole world decides to go to California?”

Speaking at a North Carolina event, Trump said Newsom wants “health care for everyone. He wants everything for everyone. He wants to open up the borders. He wants to take care of everyone.”

“And I was just saying, what happens if the whole world decides to go to California?” Trump continued.

Trump said Newsom’s plan means “they’re going to take care of the whole world.”

“Where do you stop?” Trump asked. “You’re going to take care of a lot of people, but they’re not going to be able to do it for very long because it’s not going to work.”

Earlier this week, Newsom said he would like to extend San Francisco’s universal healthcare plan for illegal immigrants that he ushered in when he was mayor to the rest of the state.

“I did universal health care when I was mayor. Fully implemented, regardless of pre-existing conditions, ability to pay, and regardless of your immigration status,” Newsom said. “San Francisco is the only universal health care plan for all undocumented residents in America. Very proud of that. We proved it could be done without bankrupting the city. I’d like to see that extended to the rest of the state.”

Newsom also claimed on Twitter that offering universal health care to illegal immigrants is “the economically smart thing to do.”

“If we don’t offer coverage to everyone – regardless of income or immigration status – we will still carry the expense,” Newson said. “Universal access isn’t just the right thing to do – it’s the economically smart thing to do.”

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Bill to Provide Free Healthcare for Adult Illegal Aliens Dies in CA Legislature

MedizinCalifornia Senate Bill 974, which would provide for “full-scope” Medi-Cal health benefits to all illegal aliens, died in the State Assembly after concerns about up to $3 billion in new costs.

“SB-974 Medi-Cal: Immigration Status: Adults” failed quietly in the Assembly’s Appropriation Committee on August 18, despite an effort to save part of the bill by reducing the cost of taxpayer coverage to $200 million by only covering adult illegal aliens 65 years and older.

After the Democrat-controlled California legislature passed “Health for All Kids” (SB 75) in 2016, which extended full Medi-Cal benefits to 200,000 illegal alien children under the age of 19, Senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) promised that he would fight to expand coverage to all adults who would be eligible, regardless of their immigration status.

When Lara introduced SB 974 on April 2, he told Politico that despite President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration, California Democrats continue to believe that health care is a civil right for all residents. “California has never waited for the federal government, or for a political climate, to be able to take leadership on a whole host of issues,” he said.

Lara and other California Democrats had been claiming that there would be no added taxpayer burden from SB 974, because California is already paying for poor undocumented adult illegal aliens through emergency rooms across the state.

But the non-partisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) examination in May of the financial impacts of SB 974 revealed the cost for extending the coverage to full-scope Medi-Cal coverage for all eligible adult illegal aliens would be $4.74 billion — a $3 billion increase in the taxpayer burden above what is currently provided to illegal aliens through emergency rooms alone. …

Click here to read the full article from Breitbart.com/California

California one step closer to expanding Medicaid for illegal immigrants

Healthcare costsCalifornia is one step closer to expanding Medicaid for illegal immigrants in the state, with legislation from both chambers of the legislature that could reach Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk.

The California State Assembly last week passed a measure that would expand a current program, introduced in 2015 by Brown, which provided Medi-Cal coverage for undocumented minors under the age of 19. The new legislation, introduced by Democratic State Assemblymember Dr. Joaquin Arambula, expands that program to cover undocumented young adults up to age 26.

“The Medi-Cal program is, in part, governed and funded by federal Medicaid program provisions,” the Assembly bill read. “The federal Medicaid program prohibits payment to a state for medical assistance furnished to an alien who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence or otherwise permanently residing in the United States under color of law.”

Arambula’s bill was initially slated to cover all undocumented adults, but was amended to expand coverage to just young adults under 26 years of age. That bill is expected to be considered in the California State Senate. …

Click here to read the full article from Fox News