CA AB 2135
withdrawnLong-term health care facilities.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2135 pass?
No. CA AB 2135 was withdrawn and is no longer under consideration. Latest recorded action (2026-08-13): In committee: Held under submission.
What is CA AB 2135 about?
(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of health facilities, including, but not limited to, long-term health care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law requires a contract for admission to a long-term care facility to state that a resident shall not be involuntarily transferred within, or discharged from, a long-term health care facility unless the resident is given reasonable notice in writing, and transfer or discharge planning, as specified. Willful or repeated violations of the provisions relating to long-term health care facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would require long-term health care facilities to provide residents with a notice of a facility-initiated transfer or discharge at least 30 days before a resident is transferred or discharged, unless an exception applies. The bill would require the notice of transfer or discharge to be acknowledged by the signature of the resident or, if applicable, the resident's representative. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation and would make knowingly making a false verification regarding the delivery of a notice of transfer or discharge a willful violation for purposes of the criminal provision described above. The bill would require a notice of discharge or transfer to be provided to a resident and, if applicable, the resident's representative in a translated or accessible format at the same time as the written notice in English if the resident's primary language is not English or if the resident is vision impaired or blind, as specified. The bill would also require the translated or accessible-format notices to be made available to the local long-term care ombudsman upon request. The bill would require the translator to attest, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the translation, thereby expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would require a resident's primary language or sensory impairments to be included in the minimum dataset maintained by the facility. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation. Existing law requires that a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge be sent to the local long-term care ombudsman at the same time notice is provided to the resident or the resident's representative by facsimile machine, email, or first-class mail, as specified. Existing law requires, if a resident is subject to a facility-initiated transfer to a general acute care hospital on an emergency basis, the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable. This bill would instead require the notices described above to be sent to the long-term care ombudsman by facsimile, email, or other electronic means. For emergency transfer notices, the bill would require a copy of the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 24 hours after the transfer. Because a willful or repeated violation of long-term care facilities provisions is a crime and because the crime of perjury is expanded, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Existing law, the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, requires, among other things, that long-term health care facilities timely comply with hearing decisions issued by the department's Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals for improperly transferring, discharging, or refusing to readmit a resident. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a penalty of $750 for each calendar day a facility fails to comply with the hearing decision and caps aggregate penalties for each individual hearing decision at $75,000. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to prohibit the admission of new residents to a long-term health care facility upon notification that a facility has failed to timely comply with a hearing decision. The bill would require the prohibition to remain in effect until the facility has achieved compliance, the maximum aggregate of penalties have been collected, or the facility has formally sought judicial review of the hearing decision. The bill would increase the daily penalty described above to $1,000 for each calendar day and increase the maximum aggregate penalty amount to $100,000. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA AB 2135?
Kalra is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2135.
Description
(1) Existing law provides for the licensing and regulation of health facilities, including, but not limited to, long-term health care facilities, as defined, by the State Department of Health Care Services. Existing law requires a contract for admission to a long-term care facility to state that a resident shall not be involuntarily transferred within, or discharged from, a long-term health care facility unless the resident is given reasonable notice in writing, and transfer or discharge planning, as specified. Willful or repeated violations of the provisions relating to long-term health care facilities is a misdemeanor. This bill would require long-term health care facilities to provide residents with a notice of a facility-initiated transfer or discharge at least 30 days before a resident is transferred or discharged, unless an exception applies. The bill would require the notice of transfer or discharge to be acknowledged by the signature of the resident or, if applicable, the resident's representative. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation and would make knowingly making a false verification regarding the delivery of a notice of transfer or discharge a willful violation for purposes of the criminal provision described above. The bill would require a notice of discharge or transfer to be provided to a resident and, if applicable, the resident's representative in a translated or accessible format at the same time as the written notice in English if the resident's primary language is not English or if the resident is vision impaired or blind, as specified. The bill would also require the translated or accessible-format notices to be made available to the local long-term care ombudsman upon request. The bill would require the translator to attest, under penalty of perjury, to the accuracy of the translation, thereby expanding the crime of perjury. The bill would require a resident's primary language or sensory impairments to be included in the minimum dataset maintained by the facility. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a class "B" violation. Existing law requires that a copy of the notice of transfer or discharge be sent to the local long-term care ombudsman at the same time notice is provided to the resident or the resident's representative by facsimile machine, email, or first-class mail, as specified. Existing law requires, if a resident is subject to a facility-initiated transfer to a general acute care hospital on an emergency basis, the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable. This bill would instead require the notices described above to be sent to the long-term care ombudsman by facsimile, email, or other electronic means. For emergency transfer notices, the bill would require a copy of the notice to be provided to the local long-term care ombudsman as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 24 hours after the transfer. Because a willful or repeated violation of long-term care facilities provisions is a crime and because the crime of perjury is expanded, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to establish an inspection and reporting system to ensure that long-term health care facilities are in compliance with state statutes and regulations. Existing law, the Medi-Cal Long-Term Care Reimbursement Act, requires, among other things, that long-term health care facilities timely comply with hearing decisions issued by the department's Office of Administrative Hearings and Appeals for improperly transferring, discharging, or refusing to readmit a resident. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a penalty of $750 for each calendar day a facility fails to comply with the hearing decision and caps aggregate penalties for each individual hearing decision at $75,000. The bill would authorize the State Department of Public Health to prohibit the admission of new residents to a long-term health care facility upon notification that a facility has failed to timely comply with a hearing decision. The bill would require the prohibition to remain in effect until the facility has achieved compliance, the maximum aggregate of penalties have been collected, or the facility has formally sought judicial review of the hearing decision. The bill would increase the daily penalty described above to $1,000 for each calendar day and increase the maximum aggregate penalty amount to $100,000. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2026-04-06
- Latest action
- 2026-08-13 — In committee: Held under submission.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Kalraauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-08-13
In committee: Held under submission.
2026-08-03
In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.
2026-06-30
Withdrawn from committee.
withdrawal
2026-06-30
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2026-06-29
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-25
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 24).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-06-04
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-05-27
Referred to Coms. on HEALTH and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-05-14
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-14
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 1. Page 5049.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-06
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-20
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2026-04-16
Read second time and amended.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-04-15
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 14).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-04-07
Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.
referral-committee
2026-04-06
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-03-16
Referred to Com. on HEALTH.
referral-committee
2026-02-19
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
2026-02-18
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-14 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (16)
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Addis: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Patel: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Patterson: other
- Chen: other
Do pass.
2026-05-06 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Krell: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Ta: other
- Arambula: other
- Tangipa: other
AB 2135 Kalra Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-14 · pass · 68-1
Member-level votes (80)
- Ward: yes
- Krell: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Chen: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Addis: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Berman: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Solache: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Hart: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Papan: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Patel: yes
- Davies: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Jackson: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Haney: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Lee: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Soria: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Bennett: yes
- DeMaio: no
- Macedo: other
- Tangipa: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
- Flora: other
- Lackey: other
- Patterson: other
- Bains: other
- Ta: other
- Castillo: other
- Hadwick: other
- Arambula: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-06-24 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (11)
- Pérez: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Rubio: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Grove: yes
- Padilla: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Valladares: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-08-01T14:16:02.923288Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2135. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.