AB 142 requires the state utilities regulator to design and run a suite of programs supplying telecommunications devices and relay services for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, visually impaired, or have speech disabilities. The bill prescribes who can certify eligibility, limits the state subsidy for durable medical equipment to Medi‑Cal reimbursement rates, and explicitly excludes a training obligation for speech‑generating devices.
On the funding side, the bill extends the surcharge used to pay for these programs through December 31, 2034, authorizes collections up to $100 million per year, requires the programs and surcharge to appear on subscriber bills, and establishes a separate administrative fund with an annual review rule for fund balances. For carriers, insurers, disability organizations, and program managers, the law reshapes eligibility verification, reimbursement limits, and administrative responsibilities that determine who pays and who receives devices and services.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires the state commission to provide assistive telecommunications devices, dual‑party relay service, and speech‑generating devices at no extra charge beyond the basic exchange rate to certified subscribers and specified organizations. It conditions subsidies for durable medical equipment on available insurance, caps program reimbursement at Medi‑Cal rates, and extends the surcharge funding mechanism to Dec. 31, 2034 with an annual collection cap of $100 million.
Who It Affects
State public utilities regulator and telephone corporations; people who are deaf, hard of hearing, visually impaired, or have speech disabilities; organizations representing those communities; device and relay service vendors; and ratepayers who fund the surcharge.
Why It Matters
The bill enshrines device and relay access as a funded public program while tightening cost controls (Medi‑Cal cap, funding cap, provider‑of‑last‑resort language). That combination shifts the policy question from whether subsidized access exists to how generous and administratively complex it will be.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 142 expands and structures multiple complementary programs under the state regulator’s authority: free telecommunications devices for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and for qualifying organizations, a dual‑party relay system to connect deaf or hard‑of‑hearing users with hearing callers, equipment for subscribers with visual or other medical needs, and access to speech‑generating devices for people with speech disabilities. The statute is specific about who can certify eligibility: licensed physicians, audiologists, and certain other licensed professionals can certify individuals, and the commission may define qualified state or federal agencies that also can certify.
A licensed hearing aid dispenser may certify a person only if they previously fitted that person and have hearing records on file; physician assistants and nurse practitioners may certify after reviewing medical records containing a physician diagnosis.
For speech‑generating devices the bill sets three quality criteria: the device must be (or include) a telecommunications component, be appropriate to the subscriber’s telephone‑access needs based on a speech‑language pathologist’s recommendation, and be consistent with the market quality for devices sold in California. The statute expressly disclaims an obligation for the commission to provide training on using those devices.
For specialized or supplemental telephone equipment tied to visual or medical needs, the commission must study whether to add personal income eligibility criteria and implement those criteria if feasible.Funding and administration receive detailed treatment. The commission must collect a dedicated surcharge (visible on subscriber bills), deposit collections into a named administrative fund, and may collect up to $100 million per year to cover equipment and service provider costs.
The surcharge is available until December 31, 2034, and the commission must review surcharge levels and fund balances annually, flagging any fund balance projected to exceed six months’ expenses as excessive. The commission is also directed to seek federal certification of the relay program under the FCC rules implementing ADA Section 401 and to solicit input from statewide nonprofit organizations during program design and hearings to determine cost‑effective relay methods.Finally, the bill frames the commission as the provider of last resort: eligible subscribers must first seek coverage from any available public or private insurance, and the commission may require subscribers to report coverage details.
When equipment is classified as durable medical equipment under federal HHS guidance, the total cost that the commission pays cannot exceed the Medi‑Cal reimbursement rate. The statute gives the commission discretion to designate which statewide organizations receive devices and to require telephone corporations to comply with its specifications, and it instructs the regulator to keep assessing technological changes and, if appropriate, expand the program scope to match evolving telecom capabilities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
A licensed hearing aid dispenser can certify eligibility only if they previously fitted the individual and have that person’s hearing records on file; physician assistants and nurse practitioners may certify after reviewing physician diagnosis records.
The commission must limit the state subsidy for any device classified as durable medical equipment to the Medi‑Cal reimbursement rate for that device.
The surcharge funding the program is extended through December 31, 2034, and the commission may collect up to $100,000,000 per year under the surcharge.
The bill requires the programs and the surcharge line item to appear on telephone subscribers’ bills and establishes a dedicated Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund for deposits.
The commission is not required to provide training to subscribers on the use of speech‑generating devices, even though it must provide access to devices meeting specified quality criteria.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Free devices for deaf or hard‑of‑hearing individuals and organizations
This subdivision mandates that the commission supply a telecommunications device and a single party line at no extra charge to certified individuals and to qualifying organizations. It enumerates who may certify eligibility — licensed physicians and audiologists, and certain agencies — and adds conditional authority for hearing aid dispensers, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners to certify under specified circumstances. Practically, this creates a layered certification regime that ties eligibility to medical records and prior clinical relationships, which will guide intake and verification processes for device distribution.
Dual‑party relay system and stakeholder process
The commission must design a dual‑party relay service that uses third‑party intervention to connect deaf or hard‑of‑hearing users (and designated organizations) with hearing callers through intercommunications devices. The provision requires the commission to investigate cost‑effective delivery methods, hold public hearings, and solicit statewide nonprofit deaf organizations’ input. It also directs the commission to seek federal certification under the FCC rules implementing ADA Section 401, a necessary step to align state relay services with federal standards and potential federal support.
Specialized or supplemental equipment for other disabilities
This part covers specialized telephone communications equipment for subscribers certified as disabled (visual or medical need). It broadens the pool of practitioners who can certify (optometrists, physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and requires the commission to study and, if feasible, implement personal income criteria in addition to disability certification for eligibility. That study requirement creates a potential means to target resources to lower‑income individuals but also adds complexity and a future rulemaking task.
Access to speech‑generating devices and quality standards
The commission must provide access to speech‑generating devices to certified subscribers at no extra charge. Certification may come from physicians, speech‑language pathologists, nurse practitioners, or qualified agencies. The statute sets three substantive criteria for devices: they must include a telecommunications component, be appropriate to the user’s telephone‑network needs per a speech‑language pathologist recommendation, and be consistent with devices available for purchase in the state. These objective markers will drive procurement specifications and vendor selection.
Provider of last resort, insurance first, and no training obligation
When devices are classified as durable medical equipment, the commission is expressly the payer of last resort: subscribers must first seek coverage from public or private insurers, and the commission may demand information about deductibles, copays, and benefit caps. The total commission payment for such equipment cannot exceed the Medi‑Cal reimbursement rate. Separately, the statute clarifies that the commission does not have to provide user training for speech‑generating devices, allocating the responsibility for training outside this subsidy program and potentially leaving users to seek training through other channels.
Surcharge mechanics, fund creation, and collection cap
This subdivision instructs the commission to administer a surcharge to raise revenues (subject to annual legislative appropriation), requires program identification on subscriber bills, and establishes the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program Administrative Committee Fund for deposit. The surcharge is extended to December 31, 2034, and the commission may collect up to $100 million per year. Those mechanics create an ongoing, dedicated funding stream but also an explicit statutory ceiling that will constrain program scale unless amended.
Organization designations, annual review, scope review, and charge‑value principle
The commission gets authority to designate which statewide organizations receive devices and where equipment is installed. It may direct telephone corporations to comply with its specifications. The statute requires annual review of the surcharge level and fund balances, with guidance that fund balances projected to exceed six months’ expenses are excessive. It also charges the commission with ongoing assessment of evolving technology to expand access capabilities and to structure universal‑service charges so that they reasonably equal the value of benefit to contributors—an instruction that blends equity and cost‑allocation considerations and will shape program priorities and billing practices.
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
- Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing — they gain entitlement to a state‑supplied telecommunications device and access to dual‑party relay services without an extra line charge, improving basic telephone access.
- Subscribers with speech or visual disabilities — eligible people get access to speech‑generating devices and specialized telephone equipment that meet specified quality standards, potentially removing cost barriers to communication.
- Statewide organizations representing deaf and hard‑of‑hearing communities — the commission may supply devices and relay access to selected organization offices, strengthening organizational service capacity and community outreach.
- Device manufacturers and relay service vendors — the program creates a predictable procurement market for qualifying telecommunications assistive technologies and relay service contracts, subject to commission specifications.
Who Bears the Cost
- Telephone subscribers/ratepayers — the surcharge appears on bills and funds the programs, so end users ultimately carry program costs subject to the $100 million annual cap.
- Telephone corporations — carriers must implement billing line items, host or install equipment in designated organization offices as directed by the commission, and handle administrative compliance tasks.
- Public and private insurers — because the commission is the payer of last resort, insurers may face more claims and administrative coordination as subscribers are required to seek insurance coverage first.
- The state public utilities regulator — the commission must run program design, certification rules, procurement, fund accounting, annual reviews, federal certification efforts, and ongoing technology assessments, creating sustained administrative responsibilities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing universal, quality assistive access against fiscal and administrative limits: lawmakers require the state to provide devices and relay services but simultaneously cap public spending, limit commission payments to Medi‑Cal rates, and attach rigorous insurance‑first and certification rules—forcing a trade‑off between generous, flexible coverage and tight, controllable public outlays.
The bill tries to thread two conflicting aims: broad, high‑quality access to assistive telecommunications and tight cost discipline. That shows up in several practical tensions.
Capping commission payments at Medi‑Cal reimbursement rates will limit how much the program pays for advanced or nonstandard devices; where market prices exceed that cap, users may face longer waits, limited device choices, or the need to tap private insurance or out‑of‑pocket resources. Similarly, the explicit $100 million per‑year ceiling and the six‑month fund‑balance threshold create firm fiscal boundaries that could force the commission to prioritize services or restrict eligibility if demand spikes or device prices rise.
Administrative design choices in the statute also create implementation friction. The layered certification rules (different categories of licensed professionals, record‑on‑file requirements, and agency qualifications) improve clinical accuracy but may produce access delays in underserved areas where certifying professionals are scarce.
The commission’s discretion to designate which organizations receive equipment and to determine relay‑service methods concentrates decisionmaking in the regulator, which helps coordinate procurement but risks uneven geographic coverage or political dispute over selections. Finally, the explicit non‑requirement to provide training for speech devices is a practical gap: devices delivered without guaranteed training may be unusable for some recipients, undermining the program’s access goals unless third‑party training providers step in.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.