AB 1068 tasks the Secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency (CalHHS) with creating a time‑limited working group to develop recommendations about evacuation and sheltering for older adults and people with disabilities who live in long‑term care facilities during disasters and emergencies. The group must bring together state agencies, the long‑term care ombudsman, and private‑sector and academic stakeholders to identify best practices and gaps.
The bill is narrowly drawn and advisory: it produces recommendations intended to identify statutory and regulatory changes and inform the Governor and relevant legislative committees. For compliance officers and emergency planners, the bill is important because it centralizes cross‑agency review of evacuation protocols for a high‑risk population and can shape future regulatory or statutory requirements affecting licensing, mutual aid, transportation, and shelter operations for long‑term care residents.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates an interagency, stakeholder‑based working group to evaluate evacuation and sheltering needs for residents of long‑term care facilities, and to identify statutory and regulatory changes needed to better protect those residents during emergencies. The group must produce recommendations and a written report for the Governor and legislative fiscal and policy committees.
Who It Affects
Skilled nursing facilities, residential care homes, state emergency and health agencies, local emergency managers, the State Long‑Term Care Ombudsman, disability and elder advocacy organizations, and researchers engaged in disaster response for vulnerable populations.
Why It Matters
The bill establishes a formal channel to align health, emergency management, and long‑term care stakeholders—an unusual, targeted approach that can surface specific legal or operational barriers (for example, patient transfer rules, sheltering capacity, and mutual aid practices) and thereby trigger regulatory revisions or funding requests.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill directs CalHHS to convene a working group made up of several named state entities and a set of stakeholders drawn from operators, staff, residents, local government, foundations, and academic researchers. The statute lists participating state bodies by name, which signals an expectation of interagency coordination rather than a single‑agency study.
The membership mix is designed to pair operational emergency responders with long‑term care expertise and resident advocates so recommendations reflect clinical, logistical, and resident‑centered perspectives.
The working group's deliverable is a written report that must identify the best practices for evacuating and sheltering older adults and people with disabilities who reside in long‑term care settings and, crucially, call out statutory or regulatory changes needed to implement those practices. The bill requires the Secretary to transmit the group's recommendations to the Governor and to the Legislature's appropriate fiscal and policy committees, so the output is positioned for both executive and legislative follow‑up.The statute is explicitly temporary: it sets a sunset for the added code section, making the effort a time‑bound policy review rather than a standing advisory body.
That time‑limited design suggests the drafters expect concrete, actionable recommendations that could be implemented through follow‑up legislation or regulatory amendments rather than through an ongoing convening.Operationally, the work the group is meant to do reaches into several program areas—mutual aid protocols, medical and personal needs during sheltering, transfer and medical record logistics, facility licensing requirements, and the roles of local versus state actors during evacuations. Because the bill requires identification of legal and regulatory fixes, its practical effect will depend on whether the Legislature or administrative agencies act on the recommendations and whether adequate funding is allocated to pay for changes identified as necessary.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 9114.5(a) mandates a working group convened by the Secretary of CalHHS and lists participating state agencies and stakeholder types, including the Department of Aging, Department of Rehabilitation, Emergency Medical Services Authority, Office of Emergency Services, State Long‑Term Care Ombudsman, Department of Public Health, Department of Social Services, and representatives from facility operators, staff, residents, local government, foundations, and researchers.
The statute requires the Secretary to submit the working group's recommendations in report form to the Governor and to the Legislature's relevant fiscal and policy committees so the findings are routed to both executive and budgetary decision‑makers.
The required report must include identification of statutory and regulatory changes necessary to implement improved evacuation and sheltering practices for older adults and persons with disabilities in long‑term care facilities.
The provision is temporary: the added code section is scheduled for repeal under Government Code section 10231.5, meaning the working group and its reporting requirement are intended as a time‑limited policy review rather than a permanent advisory body.
The bill centers coordination across emergency management, health, aging, and ombudsman functions—signaling that recommendations will touch licensing, mutual aid, transport, sheltering operations, and continuity of care for vulnerable residents.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Creation and composition of the working group
This subsection directs the Secretary of CalHHS to develop the working group and specifies participating state agencies and stakeholder categories. The named agencies span aging, rehabilitation, emergency medical services, emergency management, public health, social services, and the long‑term care ombudsman, while the stakeholder slot requires representation from operators, staff, residents, local government, foundations, and academic researchers. That composition ties technical emergency response capacity to on‑the‑ground long‑term care knowledge and resident advocacy, which matters because legal and operational barriers often arise where those worlds meet (for example, who arranges transport, who funds shelter medical support, and how resident consent and records are handled).
Report content and recipients
Subsection (b) requires the Secretary to submit the working group's recommendations to the Governor and to the appropriate fiscal and policy committees of the Legislature. The statute expressly asks the group to identify statutory and regulatory changes needed to implement evacuation and sheltering needs. Practically, naming both fiscal and policy committees channels the report to lawmakers who can both rewrite rules and potentially allocate funds, so recommendations that imply cost will likely generate legislative budget questions.
Sunset and temporary nature
This subsection states that the added code section is repealed on a specified date pursuant to Government Code section 10231.5, making the working group and reporting duty time‑limited. The sunset signals that lawmakers intend this to be an evidence‑gathering and recommendation phase; any permanent changes will require separate legislative or regulatory action after the report is delivered.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Residents of long‑term care facilities (older adults and people with disabilities): the working group focuses policymaking on their evacuation and sheltering needs, which can translate into clearer protocols for medical continuity, transport, and accessible sheltering.
- Family members and guardians of facility residents: better coordinated plans and explicit recommendations can reduce uncertainty about where and how loved ones will be moved and cared for during disasters.
- Local emergency managers and facility operators: a consolidated set of best practices and identified regulatory fixes can provide a roadmap for planning, reduce interagency confusion during incidents, and improve mutual aid arrangements.
- Advocacy organizations and the State Long‑Term Care Ombudsman: formal inclusion in the process gives these actors a platform to push for resident‑centered protections and to influence recommendations about consent, communication, and oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Health and Human Services Agency and listed state departments: they must commit staff time, coordination capacity, and potentially data collection resources to stand up and support the working group and produce the mandated report.
- Long‑term care facilities and operators: if the group's recommendations lead to regulatory or statutory changes, facilities may need to invest in transportation arrangements, staff training, emergency supplies, or infrastructure modifications to comply.
- Local governments and emergency medical services agencies: implementation of recommended changes—such as expanded shelter capabilities or medical shelter staffing—could require local spending or reallocation of emergency management resources.
- Legislative fiscal committees and the state budget process: any recommendations with fiscal implications will create pressure for appropriations decisions, and the Legislature will face choices about funding implementation versus leaving changes unfunded.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between protecting a highly vulnerable population through prescriptive, enforceable rules and preserving operational flexibility and fiscal realism for facilities and emergency agencies; the bill solves neither directly—it gathers evidence and builds consensus, but any hard choices about new obligations, funding, or enforcement will come later and are likely to force trade‑offs between resident safety and resource constraints.
The bill is narrowly procedural and advisory, which creates both strengths and limits. Because it only requires recommendations, its direct legal effect is limited unless the Legislature or administrative agencies act on the report.
That means the working group can identify practical fixes, but the real test is follow‑through: whether recommended statutory or regulatory changes are adopted and funded.
The statute lists participating agencies and stakeholder categories but leaves key implementation questions open. The text does not specify the working group's staffing, data‑sharing authorities, public‑meeting requirements, or whether it must publish interim materials.
The bill also contains editing artifacts in its dates, which creates ambiguity about precise deadlines for formation and submission; resolving that will be an early implementation task. Finally, recommendations that imply new operational responsibilities (transport, shelter medical staffing, or facility upgrades) raise the classic unfunded mandate problem—identifying a problem is easier than paying to fix it—and could pit resident protections against fiscal and workforce realities at the local level.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.