Health policy experts now warn that Southern California could see similar chain reactions play out again, and on a larger scale, as hospitals brace for a wave of newly uninsured patients. Recent federal and state cuts to Medicaid are expected to roughly double California’s uninsured rate, leaving an estimated 2.2 million residents without coverage by 2030. Low-income patients who rely on Medi-Cal will bear the brunt of the fallout, but those with private insurance won’t be immune either.

“The feeling that everyone experiences is the inability to access the health care they need when they need it,” said Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association.

Because the health care system is so tightly interconnected, researchers say nearly everyone could feel some version of the squeeze — fewer services, lower quality of care, and potentially higher premiums.

What triggered the crisis

President Trump’s tax legislation last year slashed nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid, the federal insurance program for low-income Americans, over the next decade. California officials estimate Medi-Cal alone could lose roughly $30 billion a year as a result.

Many low-income adults will now face new work requirements and shorter eligibility windows — rules that research shows tend to knock people off public assistance programs not because they’re ineligible, but because of bureaucratic paperwork errors. State lawmakers also trimmed benefits for undocumented immigrants and refugees enrolled in California’s programs.

Bukola Olusanya, who provides street medicine through St. John’s Community Health in South Los Angeles, said most homeless patients won’t be able to meet work requirements even when they qualify for an exemption, such as a disability. The result, she said, will be massive coverage losses among some of the most vulnerable residents.

“We’re talking about people who don’t have access to a cellphone,” Olusanya said. “They don’t have access to the internet. They don’t have access to a printer, paper or anything to complete the eligibility process.”

Taken together, these changes threaten to unravel much of the progress California made expanding health coverage over the past decade, said Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, a health care consumer advocacy group.

“From a purely economic standpoint, this is the largest cut to coverage in history,” Wright said.

Hospitals caught in the middle

Hospitals are where the financial strain lands hardest. By law, emergency rooms cannot turn anyone away, so when more patients arrive without insurance, someone still has to cover the cost of their care. The California Hospital Association projects that uncompensated care statewide will climb from roughly $2 billion to $4 billion a year because of the cuts — a serious concern, Coyle said, given that more than half of California’s hospitals are already operating in the red.

When hospitals are forced to cut costs, those cuts tend to affect everyone, regardless of insurance status. Facilities may reduce staff, cut wages, or eliminate costly services such as labor and delivery units. Some may shutter emergency departments rather than continue absorbing losses from uninsured patients. Quality of care can suffer, and hospitals already struggling financially become more likely to close for good.

“If you don’t have as many paying patients, your revenue as an organization goes down,” said Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “These are nonprofit institutions, so that revenue is what funds the delivery of care.”

Coyle noted that the Affordable Care Act had served as a financial lifeline for hospitals by extending Medi-Cal to millions of low-income Californians who previously lacked coverage, while also creating an insurance marketplace for middle-income residents. In the decade before that expansion, 26 California hospitals closed entirely, and another 22 shut down their emergency rooms.

Anticipating the federal and state cuts, California hospitals have already laid off more than 3,000 workers.

Covered California already feeling the pinch

Nearly 2 million Californians with private insurance have already felt some of these effects. Last year, Congress declined to renew roughly $3 billion in subsidies that helped middle-income families afford coverage through Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace. Without those subsidies, prices jumped sharply in January, pushing many enrollees into cheaper, less comprehensive plans.

About 140,000 people have already dropped their Covered California coverage since the start of the year, and researchers at UC Berkeley and UCLA project another 176,000 will follow. State officials have also announced that premiums will rise by nearly 10% next year.

When costs spike, healthier people are often the first to walk away from coverage, said Charles Bacchi, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans.

“They’re the first to drop coverage because they start questioning whether it’s worth it financially. Why am I buying this? The price keeps going up and I don’t use it much, so I cancel,” Bacchi said.

That exodus drives prices even higher, since the people who remain insured tend to have more expensive medical needs. Without healthier enrollees helping spread out the cost, insurers struggle to keep premiums from climbing further.

Will your own premium actually rise?

For people who get insurance through their employer, economists and insurers disagree on how directly these added costs will translate into higher premiums. Some studies suggest hospitals absorb roughly 80% of increased costs tied to uninsured patients rather than passing them along.

“I don’t know if patients with private insurance really end up worse off, and I think that’s part of why Americans seem comfortable with the pretty unequal system we have,” said Tal Gross, a health economist at Boston University.

His reasoning: hospitals are typically already charging insurers close to the maximum they can, leaving little room to shift costs further. In some cases, a rise in unpaid care can even push hospitals to lower prices for private insurers in order to attract more paying patients.

Bacchi dismissed that theory. In many parts of California, he said, there’s so little competition among hospitals that they can charge insurers almost whatever they want, since insurers are legally required to keep certain facilities in their network.

“Any facility that does burn treatment, transplants, or any of those high-cost services has all the leverage,” Bacchi said.

Broad estimates suggest premiums could rise by 1% to 2% — roughly $500 a year for the average family — from the federal cuts alone, according to Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University. Separately, state lawmakers approved a new tax on health plans meant to help offset Medi-Cal’s federal funding losses, which commercial insurers say will add another $100 per person annually.

“All of that hurts compared to what’s happening with wages, which are pretty stagnant,” Thorpe said. “It’s a bad time.”

The bigger picture

Wright, of Families USA, said losing health coverage is painful for individuals and damaging for entire communities. The same dynamic that turned King-Harbor’s 2007 closure into a regional crisis — a sudden spike in uninsured patients overwhelming emergency rooms — could resurface, only this time affecting far more hospitals across the state.

“It means people live with worse illnesses, die younger, and are one medical emergency away from financial ruin,” he said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Medicaid Cuts Could Affect Everyone — Yes, Even You. Here’s Why. appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The case centers on Officer Nathaniel Partridge, who on Sept. 17, 2017, turned in his patrol vehicle almost four hours before his shift was scheduled to end and drove the 35 miles home — then collected overtime pay for hours he never worked. Court records show it wasn’t an isolated incident; Partridge did the same thing on at least two other occasions.

He was far from the only one. Investigators later determined that dozens of officers assigned to CHP’s East Los Angeles station had adopted similar habits while working overtime traffic control shifts tied to highway construction projects. Although the agency had officially barred the practice five years earlier, it went unchecked until a 2019 internal audit blew the whistle.

“I took the chance to go home and would fall on the consequence if I was called back,” Partridge later told investigators, according to court filings.

The fallout from that audit was significant: the East LA station, despite being one of the smallest patrol divisions in Southern California, had racked up overtime costs triple those of the region’s largest division. In response, CHP leadership moved in 2020 to fire dozens of officers connected to the scheme, Partridge among them.

Six years later, after the case wound through the State Personnel Board, a Justice Department criminal probe and the trial courts, California’s 2nd District Court of Appeal this week upheld a decision that a one-year unpaid suspension — not termination — was the appropriate punishment for Partridge, rejecting CHP’s push to have him permanently removed from the force.

Partridge’s attorney, David Mastagni, said the ruling affirms a fair outcome.

“Accountability and second chances are not in conflict,” Mastagni said.

The underlying facts were never in dispute. Investigators found Partridge was paid $288.98 for three hours and 45 minutes of overtime he did not actually work, part of what authorities described as a broader pattern of falsified overtime claims at the East LA station. He and numerous colleagues were fired in 2020 as a result.

The scandal drew the attention of the state Attorney General’s Office, and in February 2022, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced 302 criminal charges against 54 CHP officers, accusing them of collectively defrauding taxpayers of more than $200,000.

Those charges, however, didn’t stick for long. By December 2022, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge had offered the accused officers a deal: charges would be downgraded from felonies to misdemeanors, then dropped entirely, if they repaid the money owed. Fifty-two of the 54 officers accepted the arrangement.

When CHP fired Partridge, the agency characterized his conduct as “inexcusable neglect of duty, dishonesty [and] misuse of state property.” Partridge appealed, and the State Personnel Board — while agreeing his actions amounted to “self-enrichment at the expense of the public’s trust” — opted for a one-year suspension rather than dismissal.

CHP pushed back, arguing the punishment was too lenient and asking a district court judge to overturn the board’s decision and reinstate the termination, contending the board had abused its discretion. The judge disagreed and upheld the suspension.

Court records paint a mixed picture of Partridge’s tenure: supervisors praised his performance and recommended him for promotion, and he had no prior disciplinary history. Still, CHP leadership maintained that his actions in the overtime scheme undermined the integrity expected of an officer.

This week, the appellate court sided with the lower court, concluding the State Personnel Board acted within its authority in choosing suspension over termination.

“A reasonable decisionmaker could have dismissed Partridge, and a reasonable decisionmaker could have — and did — impose a one-year suspension without pay,” the court wrote in its ruling.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Judge Halts CHP’s Bid to Fire Officer Tied to LA Overtime Scandal appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Californians who have grown used to ordering small-batch whiskey, gin and other craft spirits online and having them show up on their doorstep may soon have to find another way to stock their home bars.

A policy that has allowed the state’s craft distillers to ship directly to customers is set to expire at the end of the year, and a fierce, largely behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign is working to make sure it stays dead. The fight offers a telling glimpse into how deep-pocketed industry players can shape the fate of legislation in Sacramento.

The direct-shipping allowance traces back to the pandemic, when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order letting distillers ship spirits straight to consumers as bars and tasting rooms shut down. Lawmakers have since renewed the temporary measure multiple times, with the latest extension due to lapse Dec. 31.

A Republican lawmaker representing the Sacramento region is pushing to make the shipping option permanent. But the effort faces stiff opposition from national alcohol distributors, the Teamsters union representing truck drivers, and California’s powerful wine industry — all of which have been lobbying quietly to keep the temporary rule from becoming law.

Opponents say they’re not out to crush small distillers, even as alcohol consumption continues to decline nationwide. Still, it’s difficult to ignore the financial muscle behind the opposition. While the exact amount spent specifically fighting this bill isn’t clear, these interests have poured at least $11 million into California political campaigns since 2000, according to CalMatters’ Digital Democracy database — including at least $738,000 already this legislative session alone.

Some of Sacramento’s most influential lawmakers have received substantial contributions from groups opposing the shipping extension. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has taken in at least $108,000 over the years, and Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón has received at least $33,000. Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio — who each chair committees overseeing alcohol regulation — have collected at least $65,000 and $129,000, respectively.

By comparison, California’s craft distillers reported spending just $53,000 on lobbying this year. Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of two distilleries in El Dorado Hills, said he’s already begun scaling back home deliveries in anticipation that the law will not survive.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” Steller said.

For local distillers throughout the Inland Empire and across Southern California who built pandemic-era direct-to-consumer business models, the coming change could mean rethinking how they reach loyal customers — many of whom came to rely on shipped bottles when tasting rooms were closed and have kept ordering ever since.

—

In other statewide news, the California Highway Patrol has lost a six-year battle to fire a Los Angeles-based officer caught up in an overtime fraud scandal that rocked the department’s East Los Angeles patrol division. Nathaniel Partridge was one of dozens of officers disciplined in 2020 after CHP discovered inflated overtime claims totaling more than $200,000. Felony charges brought against 54 officers largely fell apart in court, and a state appellate panel recently ruled that a one-year unpaid suspension — not termination — was the appropriate penalty for Partridge, finding no clear evidence he intended to deceive the department.

Meanwhile, health officials are warning that looming federal Medicaid cuts won’t just hurt low-income Californians enrolled in Medi-Cal — they’re likely to ripple outward and raise costs for people with private insurance as well. As many as 2.2 million Californians could lose coverage by 2030 under provisions in President Trump’s 2025 spending law. Because hospitals are required to treat anyone who arrives in an emergency room regardless of insurance status, uncompensated care costs are expected to balloon by as much as $2 billion to $4 billion annually, according to the California Hospital Association. More than 3,000 hospital workers statewide have already been laid off as facilities brace for the fallout, and some financially strained hospitals could be forced to close.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California’s Pandemic-Era Liquor Delivery Law Set to Expire After Industry Lobbying Push appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

For six years, Californians have been able to order a bottle of small-batch whiskey, gin or vodka online and have it delivered straight to their door. That convenience is set to disappear unless state lawmakers act before the legislative session ends this month — and distillers say that outcome looks increasingly unlikely.

The direct-shipping allowance dates back to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pandemic-era executive order, which let craft distillers — those producing up to 150,000 gallons annually — mail their products to customers when tasting rooms and retail shelves went dark. Lawmakers have extended the policy several times since, but the latest extension expires Dec. 31.

Assemblymember Josh Hoover, R-Folsom, tried this year to make the shipping allowance permanent by attaching it to one of his bills. He’s not optimistic it will survive.

“I don’t have a lot of hope that we’re going to be able to salvage this,” Hoover said.

Behind the scenes, a coalition of well-funded interests — including major alcohol wholesalers, the Wine Institute and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters — has spent more than $1 million lobbying the Legislature and state agencies this year, according to disclosure filings. Those same groups have donated at least $11 million to California lawmakers since 2000, including more than $738,000 since the start of the current two-year legislative session.

By contrast, the state’s craft distillers have spent only about $54,000 on lobbying this year and have made just a handful of political contributions over the past decade — including a $42 bottle of whiskey given to former state Sen. Bill Dodd in 2022.

“They went directly to legislators’ offices and basically torpedoed any effort we came up with,” said Cris Steller, acting executive director of the California Distillers Association and owner of Amador and Dry Diggings Distillery in El Dorado Hills.

Hoover’s Assembly Bill 2211, which would let craft distillers hold tastings and sell spirits away from their distilleries, has moved through the Legislature without a single “no” vote. But Hoover’s effort to attach a permanent direct-shipping provision to the bill has stalled amid the quiet opposition.

Teamsters lobbyist Matt Broad said his union isn’t against letting small distillers ship their products — but insists deliveries should go through established carriers with actual employees, such as UPS, rather than independent contractors.

“We are absolutely not opposed to the little guys being able to ship directly to consumers,” Broad said, “but with meaningful guardrails that protect our members and protect the public.”

Representatives for the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America, the California Beer & Beverage Distributors and the California Family Beer Distributors said in a joint statement that the shipping allowance “was always meant to be temporary pandemic relief” and is “expiring exactly as designed.” They noted that consumers can still have spirits delivered through third-party services such as DoorDash.

Steve Gross, president and CEO of the Wine Institute, said his industry — which has shipped directly to California consumers for decades — isn’t necessarily opposed to distillers gaining the same right. But he argued it would be unfair to grant small distillers delivery privileges while larger spirits producers remain excluded.

“They have the option to go in and try and fight for a bill that we and others could also support,” Gross said. “They’ve chosen not to, because those larger distillers are not their members.”

With the Legislature set to adjourn Aug. 31, any changes to Hoover’s bill would likely need approval from top Democratic leaders, who have shown little sign of intervening. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who has received at least $108,000 from groups opposing the shipping extension, declined interview requests. Senate President Pro Tem Monique Limón, who has received at least $33,000 from the same interests, said in a statement that the bill “will continue to work its way through the legislative process as intended.”

Sen. Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblymember Blanca Rubio, both Democrats who chair committees overseeing California’s alcohol industry, also declined to add the shipping provision when Hoover’s bill passed through their panels. A spokesperson for Sen. Rubio said there is currently no formal proposal before the committee to extend the policy, adding that she has supported previous extensions.

For distillers like Steller, the uncertainty is already affecting business decisions. He said he’s begun scaling back on shipments to customers rather than invest further in a program that appears headed for extinction.

“I don’t want to keep putting money into a program that’s going to get yanked,” he said.

The dispute underscores how, in Sacramento, deep-pocketed industries can quietly reshape or kill legislation through private negotiations — leaving small businesses like California’s craft distilleries with little leverage against organized opposition.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Big Lobbying Dollars Could End California’s Craft Liquor Delivery Services appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California Public Employees Retirement System reported a 14.8% investment gain for the 2025-26 fiscal year, a figure unions are now citing as evidence that the state can afford richer pensions for public safety workers without burdening taxpayers.

For local governments fighting the proposed pension increase, the report was unwelcome news. City officials argue that expanding benefits for police and fire employees would inevitably lead other public worker groups to demand similar treatment, straining budgets already stretched thin.

The measure at the center of the debate, Assembly Bill 1383, cleared the Assembly with strong bipartisan support before lawmakers left for their summer break. It now appears positioned for passage in the Senate before the legislative session wraps up in the coming weeks, leaving opponents with little room to maneuver.

Longtime observers of California politics see echoes of a similar episode nearly three decades ago. Shortly after Gray Davis took office as governor in the late 1990s, he moved to reward the public employee unions that had bankrolled his campaign through a bruising primary and general election. Davis backed a pair of benefit expansions — one for unemployment insurance, another for pensions — arguing, with union support, that CalPERS’ strong investment performance meant the pension boost would essentially pay for itself.

That assumption unraveled when the Great Recession hit and investment returns collapsed. Cities and counties across California found themselves on the hook for sharply higher contributions, as state law requires when pension fund earnings fall short of projections.

Local leaders at the time warned that the ballooning pension bills were siphoning money away from core services, including the very police and fire departments residents depend on. The fallout eventually forced a sweeping pension overhaul in 2012, which left benefits intact for existing employees and retirees but scaled them back for new hires — the same reforms AB 1383 would partially reverse.

Officials had hoped the 2012 changes would gradually ease the financial strain as veteran employees retired and were replaced by workers under the leaner pension formula. But the damage from the earlier benefit increases lingered for years, squeezing municipal budgets long after the recession ended.

At one point, it wasn’t unusual for California cities to contribute 50 cents to the pension fund for every dollar paid in salary to police officers, with firefighter contributions not far behind. Steve Schwabauer, who was Lodi’s city manager during that period, delivered a blunt warning to CalPERS trustees, telling them the city was on “a slow, inexorable slide toward insolvency” if pension costs kept climbing at that pace.

Three California cities — Vallejo, Stockton and San Bernardino — ultimately filed for bankruptcy, with soaring pension obligations playing a significant role in each case. During Stockton’s bankruptcy proceedings, federal Judge Christopher Klein stirred controversy by ruling that the city had legal authority to cut pension benefits as part of its financial recovery. Despite the ruling, none of the three cities chose to reduce pensions.

Now, with AB 1383 back in the spotlight, the numbers at stake are substantial. CalPERS actuaries estimate the bill would add $4.8 billion in long-term costs for state and local governments, with annual employer contributions rising by an estimated $233 million.

Critics warn the true financial impact could grow far beyond that projection. Once the 2012-era pension limits for police and firefighters are rolled back, other public employee unions are likely to push for comparable increases — and in a Legislature where Democrats aligned with labor hold strong majorities, resisting those demands may prove difficult.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Pension Increases for California Police, Firefighters Could Pave Way for Other Public Workers appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Now, health experts fear a similar chain reaction could play out on a much larger scale. Deep federal and state cuts to Medicaid are projected to double California’s uninsured rate, pushing an estimated 2.2 million people off health coverage by 2030. While low-income residents who depend on Medi-Cal will bear the brunt of the damage, industry leaders warn that the pain won’t stop there — even Californians with employer-based or private insurance are likely to feel the squeeze.

“The way that everybody feels it is an inability to get access to the care they need when they need it,” said Carmela Coyle, president and CEO of the California Hospital Association.

Because the healthcare system is so interconnected, researchers say reduced services, declining quality of care and rising premiums could ripple outward to nearly everyone, not just those losing coverage directly.

How we got here

The rollback traces back to President Donald Trump’s tax legislation signed last year, which slashes federal Medicaid spending by close to $1 trillion over the next 10 years. State officials estimate Medi-Cal alone stands to lose about $30 billion annually as a result.

Under the new rules, many low-income adults will face work requirements and shorter windows to prove their eligibility — provisions that research shows tend to knock people off public assistance not because they’re ineligible, but because of paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles. California lawmakers have also trimmed state-funded health benefits for undocumented immigrants and refugees.

Bukola Olusanya, a street medicine provider with St. John’s Community Health in South Los Angeles, said the new work requirements will be nearly impossible for many unhoused patients to satisfy, even those who qualify for an exemption because of a disability.

“We’re talking about people that do not have access to a cell phone,” Olusanya said. “They don’t have access to internet. They don’t have access to a printer or paper or anything for them to complete the eligibility process.”

Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Families USA, said the combined cuts threaten to undo much of the coverage progress California has made over the last decade.

“From a pure dollars-and-cents point of view, it is the biggest rollback in coverage in history,” Wright said.

Hospitals absorb the first hit

Hospitals are usually the first to feel the strain, since federal law requires emergency rooms to treat anyone who walks in, insured or not. When more patients lose coverage, hospitals are left to cover the cost of their care. The California Hospital Association projects uncompensated care statewide will double, from roughly $2 billion to $4 billion a year. That’s a troubling prospect, Coyle said, given that more than half of California’s hospitals are already operating in the red.

When hospitals face financial strain, they typically respond by cutting costs in ways that touch every patient, regardless of insurance status — trimming staff, reducing wages, scaling back expensive service lines such as labor and delivery, or closing emergency departments altogether rather than absorbing more unpaid care. Some facilities, especially those already on shaky financial footing, could close entirely.

“If you don’t have as many (paying) patients, your income as an organization goes down,” said Nadereh Pourat, associate director of the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research. “These are nonprofit institutions, so all of that income goes toward delivery of care.”

Coyle noted that the Affordable Care Act had offered hospitals a financial lifeline by expanding Medi-Cal eligibility to millions of low-income Californians and creating a marketplace for middle-income residents to buy coverage. In the decade before that expansion took hold, 26 California hospitals closed outright, and another 22 shut down their emergency departments. Bracing for the new round of cuts, hospitals across the state have already laid off more than 3,000 workers.

Covered California feels the pinch

Nearly 2 million Californians with private coverage are already experiencing fallout from a separate but related decision: Congress’s refusal last year to extend roughly $3 billion in subsidies that helped middle-income families afford plans through Covered California, the state’s Affordable Care Act marketplace. Without that assistance, premiums spiked in January, prompting many enrollees to downgrade to skimpier plans.

Since the start of the year, about 140,000 people have already dropped their Covered California coverage, and researchers at UC Berkeley and UCLA expect another 176,000 to follow. State officials have also announced that premiums are set to climb by nearly 10% next year.

Charles Bacchi, president and CEO of the California Association of Health Plans, said rising costs tend to push healthier, lower-risk enrollees out of the insurance pool first.

“They’re the first ones to drop coverage because they start to question the financial bargain of the whole thing. Why am I buying this? The cost keeps going up and I don’t use it that much, so I drop it,” Bacchi said.

That exodus leaves behind a pool of sicker, costlier patients, which drives premiums even higher — a cycle insurers call a “death spiral.”

Will your premium actually rise?

For Californians who get coverage through their employer, there’s less consensus on exactly how much of this cost gets passed along. Research suggests hospitals typically absorb around 80% of the added expense created by rising numbers of uninsured patients.

“I don’t know if privately insured patients really get hurt, and I think that’s partly why Americans seem to be comfortable with the fairly inequitable arrangement we have,” said Tal Gross, a health economist at Boston University. His reasoning is that hospitals are generally already charging insurers close to the ceiling of what the market will bear, leaving little room to shift additional costs onto private plans. In some instances, he said, a rise in unpaid care can even push hospitals to lower prices for insurers in hopes of attracting more paying patients.

Bacchi disputes that theory. He argues that in many parts of California, hospital competition is limited, giving providers leverage to charge insurers steep rates, since insurers are legally obligated to keep certain hospitals in their networks.

“Any place that does burns, transplants, any of those high-cost services, has absolute control,” Bacchi said.

Somewhere between those two positions lies a rough consensus: Kenneth Thorpe, a health policy professor at Emory University, estimates federal cuts alone could push premiums up by 1% to 2%, or roughly $500 a year for the average family. On top of that, California lawmakers passed a new tax on health plans meant to help offset Medi-Cal’s federal funding losses — a move insurers say will tack on an additional $100 per person annually.

“That all hurts compared to what’s happening with wages, which is pretty stagnant,” Thorpe said. “It’s a bad time right now.”

The bigger picture

Wright, of Families USA, said the human cost of losing coverage extends well beyond individual patients, rippling through entire communities. The same dynamics that turned King-Harbor’s 2007 closure into a regional healthcare crisis — a surge of uninsured patients and overwhelmed emergency rooms — could resurface again, this time with the potential to strain hospitals across much of the state.

“It means people live sicker, die younger and are one medical emergency away from financial ruin,” Wright said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post How Medicaid Cuts Could Affect Southern Californians of All Income Levels appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

As someone who has spent nearly two decades working to strengthen civic engagement here in the Inland Empire, I’ve come to believe that a healthy democracy depends on elections that are both secure and accessible. I’ve watched newly naturalized citizens cast their first ballots with pride, and I’ve seen young people become lifelong voters simply because someone took the time to walk them through the process. Those moments matter, and the progress behind them is worth protecting.

That’s why I’m concerned about Proposition 39, one of several statewide measures Californians will weigh in on this fall. If approved, it would require voters to show a government-issued photo ID at the polls and would ask mail-in voters to include the last four digits of a government ID number on their ballots — information election officials would then have to cross-check against voter registration records.

The trouble is, California already has a system in place to confirm who is eligible to vote. State law requires anyone registering to affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they are a U.S. citizen, and applicants must submit identifying information such as a driver’s license number or Social Security number. Voting while ineligible is also a federal crime. Prop. 39 would layer a new requirement on top of safeguards that already exist, adding friction without addressing any real problem.

If voters approve the measure, it could create real obstacles for millions of eligible Californians trying to cast a ballot — particularly Latino voters and young people, two groups I’ve worked closely with throughout my career. National research shows that more than one in four Latino adults lack a driver’s license reflecting their current name or address, and 41% of young adults ages 18 to 24 face the same issue. As these groups gain more political influence with each election cycle, measures like this risk chipping away at their voice in California’s future.

There’s also a broader concern about trust. Many eligible voters — especially in immigrant and mixed-status households — are already wary of interacting with government systems because of privacy concerns and uncertainty about how their personal data might be used. Introducing a new ID requirement could deepen that hesitancy, discouraging participation among people who have every right to vote, while also raising questions about the cost and security of implementing such a system.

Supporters of Prop. 39 argue that ID requirements would prevent fraud and bolster confidence in elections. But the evidence simply doesn’t support that claim. According to the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice, documented instances of voter fraud occur at a rate of roughly 0.0003% to 0.0025% — essentially nonexistent.

There’s a financial cost to consider as well. California is already grappling with budget shortfalls, and the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that creating a new statewide ID system, as Prop. 39 would require, could cost taxpayers anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to several hundred million. Even if the ID itself were offered free of charge to voters, the overall price tag would be substantial — and hard to justify for a problem that isn’t actually occurring.

California is home to more than 27 million eligible voters, making it the largest democratic electorate in the country. At a moment when the nation is preparing to mark its 250th anniversary, we should be looking for ways to strengthen access to the ballot box — not erect new barriers.

Our state has an opportunity to model the democratic ideals this country was founded on by ensuring that every eligible Californian can vote with confidence, ease and full participation in the process.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Voter ID Ballot Measure Would Burden a System That’s Already Secure appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

This November, voters will weigh in on Proposition 39, a measure that would require Californians to show a government-issued ID when voting in person, or supply the last four digits of an ID number when voting by mail. The initiative also directs the state to provide free identification cards to residents who don’t already have one, and it calls for tighter maintenance of voter rolls, including stronger citizenship verification.

Bill Jones, who served two terms as California’s secretary of state and oversaw the state’s elections office, says he’s backing the measure because he believes voter confidence and voter participation go hand in hand — not because he thinks fraud is widespread in California, but because he believes the system currently has fewer safeguards than it once did.

“A voter who doubts the process is a voter who eventually disengages,” Jones said, explaining his support for the initiative. “For elections to work, participation and integrity depend on each other.”

Jones argues that Proposition 39 would not create new obstacles for eligible voters, since the required ID would be free and easily accessible. He also points out that California would be joining the majority of states nationwide — 36 in total — that already require some form of identification to vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Supporters of the measure say it addresses a long-standing weak spot in California’s election system: a voter registration list that isn’t always promptly updated to remove duplicate entries, deceased voters or people who were mistakenly added. Jones contends that stronger identity checks, paired with more diligent list maintenance, would help restore public trust without shutting anyone out of the process.

The measure qualified for the ballot earlier this year after gathering signatures from a politically diverse coalition of supporters. But it has also become a point of contention over how it’s described to voters. In July, the state Attorney General’s office revised the official ballot language, now stating that the initiative “prohibits citizens from voting” unless they present identification — wording that Jones and other supporters argue mischaracterizes a policy already in place across much of the country, under both Democratic and Republican leadership.

Jones, who has observed elections abroad as part of international monitoring efforts, said his time watching Mexico’s electoral system rebuild credibility after decades of one-party rule shaped his views on the value of identity verification. During that trip, he recalled seeing voters present identification and have their fingers marked with ink to prevent duplicate voting — a system designed to reassure the public that election results reflected the true will of voters.

While he acknowledges California’s challenges are far different from Mexico’s political history, Jones said the comparison illustrates a broader point: safeguards matter most when public trust is fragile. He noted that California currently mails ballots automatically to registered voters, including some who may have moved, and permits ballot collection practices — commonly known as ballot harvesting — that didn’t exist during his time overseeing state elections.

Jones was careful to note that none of these practices point to widespread fraud. Rather, he said, they highlight gaps in oversight at a time when confidence in public institutions, including elections, has been declining nationally.

“Prop. 39 doesn’t solve every problem with American elections,” Jones said. “But it does something achievable — it makes California’s system harder to doubt.”

Not everyone agrees that the measure would strengthen elections without unintended consequences. Critics, including civic engagement advocates, argue that voter ID requirements — even those offering free identification — can create new barriers for voters who lack easy access to documentation, transportation or the resources needed to obtain an ID before Election Day. Opponents worry the proposal could disproportionately affect lower-income residents, elderly voters, or those in rural and underserved communities across the Inland Empire and beyond.

As the November election approaches, voters throughout Southern California will be asked to weigh those competing concerns: whether tighter identification rules will restore confidence in the state’s election system, or whether they risk making it harder for eligible residents to cast a ballot.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Stricter Voter ID Rules Could Help Restore Trust in California Elections appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

He climbed into his Peterbilt, put on his headset, joined the conversation, and settled in for what would become hours of talk with friends scattered across the globe.

Singh, an Indian American trucker who has built something of a social media following, spends at least eight hours a day on the phone while hauling freight, six days a week. He calls it his “empathy call” — a ritual that keeps his spirits up and, just as importantly, keeps him alert behind the wheel.

It’s a habit shared by countless drivers across California and beyond, who dial into conversations that stretch across continents and time zones, forming a kind of rolling community that travels with them down the highway.

Drivers say the calls are a lifeline for their mental health in a profession defined by long stretches alone, sitting for hours with little chance to move or socialize.

“Truckers in the U.S. deal with a lot of stress,” Singh said. “I think long calls are an effective way to reduce that stress, that isolation, that loneliness in the cab — by letting people share what they’re feeling.”

Of course, using a handheld phone while driving is illegal in California, and drivers say they make sure to keep one ear free in their headsets to stay within the law. They also know the dangers of distracted driving all too well, and several told CalMatters they end their calls the moment traffic gets heavy.

The stakes are high every time a driver takes the wheel of a 36-ton rig — for road safety and for a commercial driver’s license that isn’t easy to win back if something goes wrong. The California Department of Motor Vehicles screens drivers’ physical and mental health during license renewals, and licenses can be suspended over health concerns.

Yet the state has never conducted a comprehensive study on truckers’ mental health, nor does it offer a rehabilitation program for drivers struggling with it. If a mental health issue comes to the state’s attention, drivers are largely left to fight for their license renewal on their own, often needing to hire an attorney.

Lindsey Bryan, health and wellness manager for Project 61, a nonprofit focused on trucker health, said isolation is a daily reality for drivers. “We see drivers dealing with social isolation every day,” Bryan said. “They’re away from their loved ones, and on top of that, they don’t have access to a lot of the things you and I use to manage stress.”

Academic researchers have found that the loneliness truckers experience sets them apart from other workers when it comes to how they use social media and digital communication. A 2016 study, “Work Strain, Social Isolation and Mental Health of Long-Haul Truckers,” noted that social media use has generally been linked to feelings of isolation among internet users.

For truckers, though, the opposite tends to be true. Platforms like WhatsApp and FaceTime give them a sense of community rather than isolation while they’re on the road.

“These opportunities would provide truck drivers the social connections they need during layovers, while waiting to load or unload their trucks, during any other non-driving period, or during emergencies,” the study’s authors wrote.

Until She Starts Snoring

The calls might look like a distraction from the outside, but many drivers insist they actually help keep them focused.

“The reason I still talk on my cellphone in the car today, hands-free or Bluetooth, is that it keeps me alert,” said Joseph Rajkovacz, a retired executive with the Western States Trucking Association. “It’s like turning on the radio and singing along to a song you like. Doesn’t matter if nobody wants to hear you sing — it still helps you stay sharp.”

That’s why Gerald Bailey, 53, says he spends 27 hours a week on the phone with his wife and siblings, chatting at all hours of the day and night. It’s become part of his routine every time he gets behind the wheel.

Earlier this summer, he was on the phone with his wife at a truck stop in Lodi while waiting for a mechanic to fix his rig’s air conditioning.

“I talk to my wife on the phone until she starts snoring,” Bailey said with a smile. “Then I let her rest — she’s earned it, and I don’t want to bother her.”

Not every driver has that freedom, though. Some companies prohibit phone use while driving altogether and monitor cabs with cameras.

“It’s against company policy,” said Peter Andrews, 62, a trucker from Texas, walking through a truck stop near Sacramento. “I have to stop the truck to call anyone. They’ve got AI cameras pointed right at my face, so I can’t touch the phone.”

Health Risks on the Road

According to Project 61 data, 70% of truckers in the United States are obese — double the rate among American workers generally. Truckers also experience heart disease and depression at twice the national average, and diabetes at twice the rate of the general population.

Raman Dhillon, executive director of the North American Punjabi Trucking Association, knows those risks firsthand. Years behind the wheel led to weight gain, and eventually diagnoses of diabetes and high blood pressure.

Truckers are “out there on the road. They’re isolated in that 3-by-3-meter cab, and the loneliness in that moment is intense,” Dhillon said. “You’ve got 11 hours of driving, three hours of rest, 10 hours of sleep — it’s a constant cycle. I think a lot of drivers cope with that through phone calls.”

Singh sees the physical health risks as closely tied to psychological isolation. He said drivers tend to feel more disconnected when they’re eating poorly on the road. That’s why his wife, Harjinder Kaur, a nurse, prepares two or three home-cooked Indian curries along with whole wheat bread for him to take on deliveries.

Truckers also describe facing discrimination that complicates their travels, including businesses refusing to let them use restrooms. The issue reached Congress last year, when a Republican lawmaker introduced legislation that would require retailers and warehouses to give truckers restroom access. The bill has stalled.

“They won’t let us use the bathrooms,” said Brenda Johnson, 58, who drives a route from Oregon with her husband. “There’s no infrastructure for us. And these companies we’re delivering to treat us like we’re less than human.”

Exercise poses its own challenge. “We really don’t have anywhere safe to work out,” Johnson said at a truck stop near Interstate 80 in Sacramento. “You want to walk around a parking lot with trucks coming in and out? You’re dodging everything. There’s just no safe place to move around.”

Fighting Loneliness

Even constant company hasn’t erased Johnson’s loneliness. “Even though my husband rides with me and is right there beside me, I can feel lonely and not lonely at the same time,” said Johnson, who has been driving since 2005. “Since we’re together all the time, we don’t really have much to talk about.”

Instead, Johnson leans on two friends in the trucking industry and a handful of close relatives. On an average day, she spends about an hour on the phone outside of work-related calls, though that number can swing widely depending on her mood.

“When I’m in a good headspace, my five hours a week can turn into almost 25,” Johnson said. “But when I’m down, I isolate myself. I don’t want to talk to anybody. I just don’t want to deal with anything.”

José Martínez, 50, a long-haul driver resting at a truck stop near Stockton, described a similar rhythm. He has wrestled with guilt over missing time with his family while working, and now calls relatives or friends whenever loneliness creeps in during a 10-hour shift.

“It’s basically constant, and talking to people is a good thing,” Martínez said.

Talking Through Emergencies

For immigrant drivers, cellphone calls offer an instant connection to their home countries that simply wasn’t possible in the era of CB radio.

The American trucking industry has long relied on immigrant labor. Between 2000 and 2021, the number of foreign-born truckers more than doubled, growing from 316,000 to more than 720,000 drivers. Today, roughly 18% of U.S. truckers are foreign-born. According to the North American Punjabi Trucking Association, nearly 35% of Punjabi Indian truckers contribute to California’s trucking industry.

Singh, the Fresno driver, moonlights as the host of a weekly television program covering Punjab politics. He’s also writing a book titled “Ameriki Trucknama” — roughly, “The American Trucking Saga” — and has built a following of 19,000 on Facebook, where people turn to him for political commentary.

Driving toward Kansas City earlier this summer, fellow Punjabi drivers asked for his take on the outcome of upcoming legislative elections in Punjab, the northern Indian state many of them call home.

Back on the highway, Singh points to more tangible benefits of these long calls — like helping drivers manage emergencies far from home.

Two years ago, he was on the phone with a friend when the man’s fuel line burst somewhere in rural Texas. Panicked, Singh stayed on the line while his friend searched for a local mechanic.

“If I hadn’t been on that call, who knows what would have happened,” Singh said.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Why Truckers Seem to Always Be on the Phone While Driving on the Freeway appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A recent CalMatters report by Gagandeep Singh dug into why phone calls have become such a fixture of life on the road for truckers, who often spend long stretches, day and night, hauling freight across the state and country with little human contact and few chances to unwind.

Piloting an 80,000-pound truck alone for hours at a time takes a toll. Drivers say there’s rarely time or opportunity to exercise, and the isolation can wear on a person. Phone calls to spouses, family members and other truckers, they say, offer a rare outlet.

Gerald Bailey, one of the drivers interviewed for the report, said he spends about 27 hours a week on the phone, mostly talking with his wife and brothers. During a stop earlier this summer at a truck stop in Lodi, he was on the line with his wife, as he often is late into the evening.

“I stay on the phone with my wife until she starts snoring,” Bailey said.

Lindsey Bryan, a health and wellness manager at a nonprofit that focuses on truckers’ well-being, said drivers are frequently separated from loved ones for long periods and lack many of the everyday outlets other workers use to manage stress. California has never conducted a statewide study specifically examining truck drivers’ mental health, and the state has no formal program to help truckers who may be struggling.

For some drivers, a simple phone call is one of the few comforts available. But not everyone on the road has that option. Peter Andrews, a trucker from Texas who was passing through a truck stop near Sacramento, said his company strictly bans phone use while driving.

“I have to pull over the truck to call someone,” Andrews said. “They’ve put camera equipment with artificial intelligence right on my face, so I can’t use my phone.”

The story is part of CalMatters’ ongoing coverage of mental health issues facing California workers.

In other news from around the state:

The race for California’s next insurance commissioner might seem far removed from the concerns of renters, but the outcome could hit close to home for millions of Californians who don’t own property. Renters make up about 44% of the state’s population, and the condition of California’s property insurance market directly shapes what they pay in rent, how much housing is available and how quickly neighborhoods can bounce back after disasters, according to CalMatters reporter Levi Sumagaysay.

Gil Barel learned that firsthand after last year’s Eaton Fire tore through parts of Southern California. Her apartment complex in Pasadena wasn’t destroyed, but smoke seeped into the building for days afterward. A test she paid for herself turned up toxic contaminants, though she’s still waiting on additional results. Her landlord arranged for a cleaning in March, but Barel says it fell short of what was needed.

“The issue is that I have no control,” Barel said. “It really depends on the conversation between my landlord and their insurance company. If the landlord does the minimum, or if they don’t feel the need to fight or be insistent on certain things, then it’s not going to happen.”

Meanwhile, state lawmakers are moving to place new restrictions on the growing use of artificial intelligence chatbots for mental health support, according to CalMatters health reporter Ana B. Ibarra. An Assembly bill would bar companies from marketing chatbots as a form of therapy, prohibit AI systems from making therapeutic decisions without oversight from a licensed professional, and require providers to obtain a patient’s consent before recording therapy sessions using AI tools.

State Sen. Steve Padilla, a Chula Vista Democrat who authored the bill, said lawmakers are grappling with technology that’s evolving faster than regulators can keep pace with.

“We’re dealing with a new impactful technology that is unfolding and is deployed in our world at light speed, and so it is both extremely powerful and consequential,” Padilla said.

Business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and TechNet oppose the measure, arguing it would stifle innovation and limit the potential benefits AI could offer.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Truckers and Cellphone Use Behind the Wheel: What’s Behind the Habit? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.