AB 2565 amends Section 14000.4 of the Welfare and Institutions Code to correct duplicated words in the provision that names the Medi‑Cal Act. The introduced draft replaces the line that currently reads with duplicated words — "known known, and may be cited cited" — restoring ordinary phrasing without changing any substantive meaning.
The change is purely clerical: it does not alter eligibility, benefits, funding, or administration of Medi‑Cal. Its practical value is limited but real for legal publishing, statutory citation, and automated legal research systems that rely on exact text matching.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises Section 14000.4 to remove duplicated words in the statute’s name and citation clause. It does not create, eliminate, or modify any rights, duties, funding, or program rules under Medi‑Cal.
Who It Affects
Primary effects fall on code editors, legal publishers, courts and clerks, state codification offices, and electronic legal research providers that publish or point to California statutory text. Medi‑Cal beneficiaries and providers see no programmatic change.
Why It Matters
Even minor typographical errors can propagate through official and commercial statutory databases and court citations, causing search mismatches or citation anomalies. Fixing the text preserves the authoritative printed and electronic record and reduces administrative friction for citation and codification.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2565 is a single‑issue bill: it replaces the current wording of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14000.4 to eliminate duplicated words in the line that designates the chapter as the “Medi‑Cal Act.” The draft as filed shows the duplicated tokens and the amendment restores the expected phrasing — "This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the 'Medi‑Cal Act.'" — removing the repeated words that appear in the existing text.
Because the amendment targets only the wording of the statute’s name and citation provision, it does not change any substantive law governing Medi‑Cal eligibility, covered services, reimbursement, or administration. The bill contains no operative rules, thresholds, penalties, fiscal changes, or regulatory directives.
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest characterizes the change as technical and nonsubstantive, which aligns with the text of the amendment.Practically, the bill ensures the state’s official code and downstream commercial databases are synchronized to an authoritative, typos‑free version of the statute. That matters for legal research, citation formatting in filings, automated statute‑matching tools used by compliance systems, and for state printing and codification.
Implementation will be administrative: once enacted, statutory publishers and state codification officers will update the official text and errata records; no new regulations or agency rulemaking should be required.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 2565 amends Welfare and Institutions Code Section 14000.4 to remove duplicated words in the statute’s naming clause.
The bill is explicitly technical and nonsubstantive in nature; it does not alter Medi‑Cal program content, eligibility, funding, or administration.
The change affects only the statute’s text as published in the official code and downstream databases — it creates no new duties or penalties.
The Legislative Counsel’s Digest and the bill header indicate no appropriation and no referral to the fiscal committee.
Primary downstream impacts are practical: updating official code publications, online statutory databases, and correcting any citations that relied on the previous text.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Corrects the statute’s naming and citation clause
This provision replaces the existing line in Section 14000.4 that contains duplicated words. Mechanically, the amendment removes the repeated tokens so the clause reads as the standard naming/citation sentence for a statutory chapter. For implementation, this is a straight text substitution in the codified statute — no subordinate regulations or agency actions are invoked.
Labels the change as technical and identifies no fiscal effect
The bill’s digest explicitly describes the amendment as technical and nonsubstantive, and the bill header notes no appropriation and no referral to a fiscal committee. That classification matters because it signals to codifiers, courts, and practitioners that the legislature intends the amendment only to tidy language rather than change policy; it also reduces the chance that agencies will treat the enactment as triggering administrative or regulatory reviews.
Updates required in official and commercial statutory records
Once the statutory text is amended, the Secretary of State’s office and official code publications must reflect the corrected language; commercial publishers and online legal research platforms will likewise update their records. The change may generate errata notices and an administrative round of updates in printing and digital platforms, but there is no legal transition rule needed because the amendment does not alter substantive rights or obligations.
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
- Legal publishers and online research platforms — they get a clean, authoritative source text, reducing mismatches in search indexes and avoiding propagation of a typographical error.
- Court clerks and litigators — correcting the statute reduces the risk of malformed citations in briefs and judgments that can create minor clerical disputes or confusion.
- State codification and legislative staff (Office of Legislative Counsel/Secretary of State) — the amendment prevents future inconsistencies between official prints and electronic records and simplifies maintenance of the code.
Who Bears the Cost
- State printing and codification offices — they must perform routine updates to official code publications and errata records, incurring minor administrative time and publishing costs.
- Commercial legal publishers and database vendors — update cycles and quality‑control processes will absorb small technical editing costs to synchronize their products.
- Legislative staff and committees — the legislative process itself consumes floor and staff time to enact a correction that is substantively nil, representing opportunity cost for legislative resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The core tension is between the need for an authoritative, error‑free official code and the formal legislative overhead required to produce even trivial textual corrections: ensuring legal certainty requires correcting typos, but each correction consumes legislative time and administrative resources that could be used on substantive policymaking.
The bill is straightforward, but a few implementation nuances are worth noting. First, even a clearly nonsubstantive textual correction requires the full legislative process to amend the official code; until enactment and publication, multiple versions may coexist across databases, which can cause short‑term confusion.
Second, automated systems that rely on exact text matching could still exhibit transient mismatches if they do not ingest the updated official text promptly; smaller law libraries and historical codifications may take longer to reconcile their copies.
Another practical tension is procedural prioritization: legislatures often use omnibus technical bills to correct stray typographical errors, but each correction still uses floor time and committee resources. That raises a policy question about whether procedural shortcuts (e.g., administrative correction authorities) should handle clerical fixes, balanced against the principle that only the legislature should change statute text.
Finally, the amendment does not address whether other nearby typographical or formatting issues exist in the code; stakeholders who manage statutory text should consider a holistic review rather than one‑off fixes to avoid repeated amendments.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.