| 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 |
| 09/27/24 | Vetoed by Governor. |
| 08/27/24 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 12 p.m. |
| 08/20/24 | In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| 08/20/24 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 7.). |
| 06/18/24 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Governor's Message |
|---|
| To the Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 2442 and Senate Bill 1067 without my signature. These bills would require specified Department of Consumer Affairs boards to create an expedited licensing process for a subset of applicants based on the type of care they intend to provide or the geographic area where they intend to provide care. I commend the authors' commitment to addressing healthcare gaps in the state, but I am concerned about the aggregate effect of legislation that seeks to expedite licensure. As the number of applicants who qualify for expedited licensure grows through legislation, the benefits of mandated prioritization may start to diminish, at the expense of potential negative impacts to other applicants. Additionally, the increase in staff needed to ensure expedited applications may lead to licensing fee increases. It would be prudent to allow time for the current expedited licensure processes to continue so that we can gather data on their effectiveness. This will allow the state to be well informed on the efficacy of this practice before pursuing additional frameworks for expedited licensure and confirm these processes do not lead to unintended consequences on the broader healthcare workforce. For these reasons, I cannot sign these bills. Sincerely, Gavin Newsom |