| Type of Measure |
|---|
| Inactive Bill - Vetoed |
| Majority Vote Required |
| Non-Appropriation |
| Fiscal Committee |
| Non-State-Mandated Local Program |
| Non-Urgency |
| Non-Tax levy |
| Last 5 History Actions | |
|---|---|
| Date | Action |
| 09/27/22 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| 08/31/22 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| 08/24/22 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 6125.). |
| 08/24/22 | Assembly Rule 77(a) suspended. (Ayes 56. Noes 16. Page 6114.) |
| 08/23/22 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 25 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Governor's Message |
|---|
| To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 2077 without my signature. This bill would increase the personal needs allowance (PNA) from $35 to $80 per month for Medi-Cal beneficiaries residing in medical institutions, nursing facilities, or receiving services from a Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE). The increase would begin no earlier than July 1, 2024 and would be contingent on any necessary federal approval and that federal financial participation (FFP) is available. I am sympathetic to the author's efforts to increase the amount a Medi-Cal beneficiary in Long-Term Care is able to retain each month to meet their personal or incidental needs to reflect the rising cost of personal goods. However, this bill could result in ongoing costs of approximately $23.8 million ($11.9 million General Fund) and these costs were not accounted for in the budget. With our state facing lower-than-expected revenues over the first few months of this fiscal year, it is important to remain disciplined when it comes to spending, particularly spending that is ongoing. We must prioritize existing obligations and priorities, including education, health care, public safety and safety-net programs. The Legislature sent measures with potential costs of well over $20 billion in one-time spending commitments and more than $10 billion in ongoing commitments not accounted for in the state budget. Bills with significant fiscal impact, such as this measure, should be considered and accounted for as part of the annual budget process. For these reasons, I am returning AB 2077 without my signature. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom |