Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02.03.21 FW_ SYASL COVID-19 Update From:Ring, Brian To:Alpert, Bruce;Bennett, Robin;Clerk of the Board;Connelly, Bill;Cook, Holly;Cook, Robin;Kimmelshue, Tod; Lambert, Steve;Lucero, Debra;McCracken, Shari;Paulsen, Shaina;Pickett, Andy;Ring, Brian;Ritter, Tami; Rodas, Amalia;Sweeney, Kathleen;Teeter, Doug Cc:Pickett, Andy;Snyder, Ashley Subject:FW: SYASL COVID-19 Update Date:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 6:26:17 AM Attachments:SYASL COVID-19 Update 2.2.2021.pdf Good morning Board – FYI – update on COVID from our State lobbyist. Brian Ring Assistant Chief Administrative Officer Administration 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 T: From: SYASL County Info <SYASLCountyInfo@SYASLpartners.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 2, 2021 5:55 PM To: SYASL County Info <SYASLCountyInfo@SYASLpartners.com> Subject: SYASL COVID-19 Update ATTENTION: This message originated from outside Butte County. Please exercise judgment before opening .. attachments, clicking on links, or replying. To: County Administrative Officers and Interested Parties From: Paul J. Yoder and Karen Lange Date: February 2, 2021 RE: SYASL COVID-19 Update Please find attached our daily SYASL COVID-19 update. -Paul and Karen COVID-19 Updates www.covid19.ca.gov February 2, 2021 Newsom Administration - Resources / Mutual Aid / Executive Orders Today, Dr. Ghaly provided an update on COVID-19 numbers in California. He announced that hospitalizations and ICUs continue to decrease and that based on current projections, hospitalizations are anticipated to decrease to 6,557 by March 4, 2021. Dr. Ghaly noted that California is actively sequencing variants and building capacity to do even more. However, there is still a lot unknown due to a lack of data on the new variant. He also provided an update on the County Tier System: o Counties moving from Red to Orange: Trinity, Alpine o Purple: 54 o Red: 1 o Orange 3 o Yellow: 0 here and SYASL staff notes here. Please visit covid19.ca.gov for the latest information and the California Department of Public Health website for the latest guidance documents. Vaccines CalMatters: Counties to get more money for vaccinations Please note the allocation of funds for counties on page 12 of the Department of Finance letter that is referenced. Letter re: Feasibility and COVID-19 Emergency Regulation The CalChamber has sent a letter to Legislative Leadership as a follow-up to an earlier letter regarding . The letter is to provide a more detailed analysis of the undue burden employers throughout the State are facing due to standards Cal/OSHA adopted at the end of last year to address COVID-19. View here. Berkeley IGS Poll Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies has released the results of a new poll. View here. Legislative / Budget News -19 page here for updates. The LAO has been releasing a series of reports regarding Federal actions affecting California related to developments around COVID-19. View here. February1,2021 The Honorable Toni Atkins The Honorable Anthony Rendon President Pro Tem, California State Senate Speaker, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 205 State Capitol, Room 219 Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 Members California State Legislature State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: California Occupational Safety and Health Emergency COVID Regulations Madam President Pro Tem, Mr. Speaker, Members of the State Legislature: As a follow- provide you with a more detailed analysis on the undue burden employers throughout the State are facing due to rushed and infeasible standards Cal/OSHA adopted at the end of last year to address COVID-19 acknowledge that safety practices in the workplace have had to change as a result of COVID, such new safety restrictions must be feasible for employers of all sizes large and small, rural and urban to implement. In the rush to put the ETS into effect via emergency rulemaking last year, Cal/OSHA failed to adequately consider the feasibility of some of its provisions for employers, most importantly unlimited paid time off from work and testing obligations. These infeasible requirements will remain in effect until the Regulation expires later this year or, if extended, into early next year. They must be addressed. 1) California Employers Cannot Afford the Unlimited Paid Time Off Provision of the Regulation. The Financial Burden of Unlimited Time Off for Struggling Employers is Significant - The Regulation 1 requires employers to exclude anyone who was of a COVID-19 case from the workplace 2 for 10- This means that a working group or unit may all need to be excluded for a 10-14 day period with paid time off if they work in a relatively proximate workspace. And such exposures may occur more than once. By way of example: if social spread creates one COVID case in a workplace per month even with no actual spread in the workplace the employer will be forced to remove all workers who were close contacts of the positive case from the 34 workplace for 10-14 days. In that time period, the employer must: -Provide paid time off to the excluded employees; and -Hire (and potentially train) temporary help to fill those roles and pay their wages, pay current employees overtime wages to make up that labor shortage, or shut down their business. 1 Defined as being within six feet of the COVID-19 case for 15 minutes, regardless of mask or dividers. See Section 3205(b)(3). 2 Section 3205(c)(10)(C). 3 Though the initial ETS provided for a 14--84-20 adjusted this period to 10 days, subject to certain requirements, to be consistent with national standards. 4 Notably, the obligations listed here all apply to one case in the workplace and ignore the sick leave obligation related to positive tests. There are considerable additional obligations when three cases occur in see Sections 3205.1 & 3205.2. However, for purposes of illustrating the cost of unlimited sick leave, this simple example is instructive. Under the Regulations, a COVID case in the workplace is not limited to employees. Accordingly, an because an asymptomatic customer came to their location. Unlike other leaves of absence, there is absolutely no limit in the Regulation on how many hours an employer must pay an employee due to exposure. Because the ETS may be in effect until early 2022, this means California employers including the smallest rural family businesses may end up paying for months of paid time off to employees who 5 never catch COVID-19 all while simultaneously paying their replacements. And this paid leave will exist 6 Or more likely, if an employer cannot quickly locate, hire, and train sufficient replacements for their workplace to fill the critical duties of these excluded workers, then the employer will have no option but to shut down that production line for the duration of the exclusion. In critical industries, these exclusions and shutdowns will slow down the production and distribution of essential goods, such as food and medical supplies. We urge the Legislature to take action to place at least some limitations on this uncapped obligation, such that employers are not forced to provide potentially months of pay to excluded employees who are not sick, while simultaneously paying a second workforce to take their places. There are a number of forms such a solution could take Employers Cannot Compel Use of Sick Leave In response to comments regarding the feasibility of this provision, Cal/OSHA has repeatedly suggested that employers may compel employees to utilize existing paid sick leave before the employer is required to provide the uncapped sick leave discussed above. These suggestions have come in the text of the Regulation, as well as the supporting Frequently Asked Questions 7 (FAQ) document. While this may help alleviate some of the burden, we are concerned that it is, in fact, not permissible under present law. As set forth in Labor Code Sections 233 and 246 and the Division of Labor Standards 8 Enforcement sick leave. Accordingly, employers cannot compel employees to utilize existing paid sick leave and therefore, this response by Cal/OSHA provides no relief to employers. Under the ETS, Vaccination Does Not Offer Any Relief from Exclusion Pay Requirements Furthermore, it should be noted that many employers have begun to (or are eager to) vaccinate their workers but the Regulation does not recognize vaccination as an alternative measure to the unlimited paid time off for exclusion. In other words even if an employer has randomized testing in place (which is , 5 Because of AB 5 (Gonzalez), it is a challenge for employers to contract for temporary staff while employees are on paid leave for exposure to a COVID case. 6 See below for discussion of paid leave takes action. 7 See Section 3205(c)(10)(C) employer-provided employee sick leave benefits for this purSee also An employer may require the employee to exhaust paid (available at: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID19FAQs.html). 8 See Labor Code § under S https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlsemanual/dlse_enfcmanual.pdf); DLSE FAQ on paid sick leave purposes can an employee take paid sick leave decide how much paid sick leave he or she wants to use (for example, whether you want to take an entire day, or only part of a day). Your employer can require you to take a minimum of at least two hours of paid sick leave at time, but otherwise the determination of how much time is needed is le and has already paid for 60 days of paid time off for each of these vaccinated employees the employer still must exclude all of them from the workplace for 10-14 days and provide them full pay. particularly the smaller employers who just barely managed to keep their doors open through 2020. Given that the Regulation may remain in effect into early 2022, language must be introduced as soon as possible to recognize vaccination as alleviating the requirement to exclude employees, which will allow critical industries to continue to function. 2) From Logistical Reality The Regulation requires employers to provide (or ensure employees have access to) testing to employees at no cost and on paid time in a variety of circumstances. If an employee is a close contact of a COVID-19 9 case, then they must be excluded (as discussed above) and receive testing at no cost. Alternatively, if three cases occur in an exposed workplace area over a 14-, 1011 and all employees in that area must be tested on a weekly basis. The outbreak provisions are triggered 12 regardless of whether the cases are among employees or customers, and are triggered regardless of whether the cases were a result of social spread (such as three employees living together and all catching it socially) or workplace spread. 13 requires twice These requirements ignore the realities of testing availability. First, tests may not be publicly available in certain rural areas and may be a serious expense for smaller employers. Second, even if they are available, employers cannot compel medical facilities to prioritize testing of cases showing no symptoms. For example: if an employee is instructed to get tested because they were potentially exposed, and calls their doctor/local medical provider, the provider will commonly tell them: (a) that no testing is available in the timeline required by the Regulation, and (b) that the medical provider does not recommend testing given no symptoms and the need to prioritize tests to higher risk individuals. These complications mean that even well-intentioned employers are at the mercy of medical logistics which they have no control over unless they can hire their own testing company, which many will not be able to do. As a result, good employers will fail to meet the requirements of the Regulation despite doing what they can, which in this case is paying their employees for the time necessary to get tested and providing them information about local testing resources. Conclusion s solution to COVID- employers. Only governments and particularly the federal government have that scale of resources to provide in these moments of crisis. That model can be seen in other recent legislation, including the recent 9 Section 3205(c)(10)(C). 10 3205(b)(7)) and is further discussed in the associated FAQs. 11 Section 3205.1. 12 See FAQs SWorkplace, Question workplace count towards the requirement? A: Any confirmed COVID-19 case who has been in the exposed workplace during the high-risk exposure period counts towards the three- 13 Section 3205.2 1415 federal rental assistance program and federal tax credits for paid sick leave, both of which included federal resources. We appreciate the importance of the continued effort to fight COVID-19 and maintain safety in the workplace for our employees. However, we believe these two specific areas of the Regulation deserve your immediate attention given the undue financial burden these provisions are placing on California employers who simply cannot afford it. Sincerely, Robert Moutrie Policy Advocate cc: Angie Wei, Special Advisor to the Governor Stuart Thompson, Chief Deputy Legislative Secretary Dee Dee RM:ldl 14 SB 91 was signed by Governor Newsom on January 29, 2021, and incorporated. 15 As of the date of this letter, the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act provides businesses with tax credits to cover some of the costs of providing additional paid sick leave and expanded family leave and medical leave to employees. Notably, the Regulation does NOT provide any form of tax credits for its unlimited paid leave. February 1, 2021 Honorable Nancy Skinner, ChairHonorable Phil Ting, Chair Joint Legislative Budget CommitteeAssembly Budget Committee Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Honorable Anthony Portantino, ChairHonorable Lorena Gonzalez, Chair Senate Appropriations CommitteeAssembly Appropriations Committee Section 28.00—Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC)Enhancing Detection through Coronavirus Response and ReliefSupplemental Funds Pursuant to the provisions of Section 28.00, 2020Budget Act,the following report is respectfully submitted. The Department of Finance has received the attached Section 28.00 application from the Department of Public Healthfor the purpose of afiscal year 2020-21 budget adjustment for the Public and Environmental Health Programto support local health jurisdictions' COVID-19 pandemic response. The Department ofPublic Healthreceived official notification of the availability of additional, unanticipated federal funds on January 7, 2021and notified Finance within 45 days of this date. Subdivision (b) of this section authorizes the Director of Finance to authorize the augmentation of expenditure equal to the amount of any additional, unanticipated funds received by the state from the federal government. The federal ELC Enhancing Detection funds providethe state with $1.7 billion to support testing,contact tracing, vaccination, surveillance, containment and mitigation through the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). ELC funding was previously provided to the state in the summer of 2020, however this funding is notably different in that the CDC has explicitly permitted its use for vaccination activities. Collectively, these funds will provide local public health departments with additional resources to mitigate the spread of the virus and reduce the number of hospitalizations related to COVID-19. These funds intend to build upon prior efforts funded through the initial allocation of ELC funds. These funds were not accounted for in the Budget Act, and the Department of Finance seeks to make the following augmentations to Budget Act items. The federal support will be added to the items below as reimbursements which increases the Department’s spending authority without creating an impact to the General Fund. -2- $1,187,498,000 to Item 4265-111-0001 for the Department of Public Health—these fundswill be provided to local governments and used to further six strategies: (1) enhance laboratory, surveillance, informatics and other workforce capacity; (2) strengthen laboratory testing; (3) advance electronic data exchange at public health laboratories; (4) improve public health surveillance and reporting of electronic health data; (5) use laboratory data to enhance investigation, response and prevention ; and (6) coordinate and engage with partners. Recently released federal guidelines include vaccination operations as an eligible use of these funds. This request meets the following criteria, as required in subdivision (b) of Section 28.00: The funds will be expended for COVID-19 pandemic response which is consistent with state law. The funds are made available to the state under conditions permitting their use only for the specified purpose, and the additional expenditure proposed would apply to this specified funding purpose. Acceptance of the additional funding does not impose on the state any requirement to commit or expend new state funds for any program or purpose. The need exists to expend the additional funding during the current fiscal year because of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic response. We concur with the necessity of this change to the approved budget, and request a waiver of the 30-day review period from the above date to provide local health departments with sufficient funds to continue emergency response efforts. If you have any questions or need additional information regarding this matter, please call Jack Zwald, Principal Program Budget Analyst, at(916) 445-6423. KEELY MARTIN BOSLER Director By: ERIKA LI Chief Deputy Director Attachment cc:Onfollowing page -3- cc: Honorable Dr. Joaquin Arambula, Chair, Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 1 Honorable Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee No. 3 Honorable Jim Nielsen, Vice Chair, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Honorable Vince Fong, Vice Chair, Assembly Budget Committee Gabriel Petek, Legislative Analyst (3) Joe Stephenshaw, Staff Director, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Kirk Feely, Fiscal Director, Senate Republican Fiscal Office Christopher W. Woods, Senate President pro Tempore's Office (2) Christian Griffith, Chief Consultant, Assembly Budget Committee Joseph Shinstock, Fiscal Director, Assembly Republican Caucus, Office of Policy and Budget Paul Dress, Caucus Co-Chief of Staff, Assembly Republican Leader’s Office Alex Khan, Chief Consultant, Assembly Republican Leader’s Office Jason Sisney, Assembly Speaker's Office (2) Mark McKenzie, Staff Director, Senate Appropriations Committee Jay Dickenson, Chief Consultant, Assembly Appropriations Committee Mark Ghaly, Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency Michelle Baass, Undersecretary, California Health and Human Services Agency Marko Mijic, Deputy Secretary of Program and Fiscal Affairs, California Health and Human Services Agency Julie Souliere, Assistant Secretary, California Health and Human Services Agency Tomás J. Aragón, State Public Health Officer, Director of California Department of Public Health Brandon Nunes, Chief Deputy Director of Operations, California Department of Public Health Susan Fanelli, Chief Deputy Director of Policy and Programs, California Department of Public Health California Department of Public Health M E M O R A N DUM DATE: January 29, 2021 TO: Ryan Miller Assistant Program Budget Manager Department of Finance 915 L Street, Ninth Floor VIA: Mark Ghaly Attention: Julie Souliere Assistant Secretary California Health and Human Services Agency 1600 Ninth Street, Room 460 FROM: Brandon Nunes Chief Deputy Director of Operations Department of Public Health 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.720 SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2020-21 Control Section 28.00 and Budget Revision for the California Department of Public Health The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) respectfully requests approval of a Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 budget adjustment for the Public and Environmental Health Program. Section 28.00 – Budget Act 2020 4265-111-0001 Local Assistance (2)4045 – Public and Environmental Health$1,187,498,000 (3)Reimbursements to 4045-Public and Environmental Health-$1,187,498,000 Total$0 The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) through Heluna Health as its designated bona fide agent received approximately $1.7 billion through the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) grant as part Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021. CDPH plans to allocate 70% or approximately $1.2 billion of this funding to local health jurisdictions (LHJ). As with previous ELC Enhancing Detection funding which provided support for COVID- 19 activities, t he activities proposed for use of these funds aim to build upon and leverage the investments of the past months, with a key goal of allocating resources that support the Ryan Miller Page 2 January 29, 2021 public health workforce, laboratory testing, epidemiological surveillance, contact tracing, and expanding key partnerships. All these increased activities must be done with a specific lens on addressing the needs of those most at risk for exposure to the disease and/or severe outcomes. Specifically, the funding is proposed to support the following six (6) strategies: 1.Enhance Laboratory, Surveillance, Informatics and other Workforce Capacity; 2.Strengthen Laboratory Testing; 3.Advance Electronic Data Exchange at Public Health Laboratories; 4.Improve Public Health Surveillance and Reporting of Electronic Health Data; 5.Use Laboratory Data to Enhance Investigation, Response and Prevention (Contact Tracing); and 6.Coordinate and Engage with Partners. Collectively, the proposed activities build upon current investments and better prepare California to address COVID-19 and allow the state to prioritize and target resources to those most vulnerable to the impacts of the disease. If you have any questions or require further information regarding this request, please contact Jovan Montantes, Budget Officer, at (916) 552-8380 or via email at Jovan.Montantes@cdph.ca.gov. Attachments cc: on following page Ryan Miller Page 3 January 29, 2021 cc: Susan Fanelli Chief Deputy Director, Policy and Programs California Department of Public Health 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.720 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phuong La Deputy Director Administration Division 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.744 Sacramento, CA 95814 Katherine Clark, Chief Financial Management Branch 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.330 Sacramento, CA 95814 Jovan Montantes, Budget Officer Budget Section 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.330 Sacramento, CA 95814 Eric Lau, Chief Reporting Accounting Section 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.223 Sacramento, CA 95814 Inessa Gotishan, Chief Operations Accounting Section 1615 Capitol Avenue, Suite 73.223 Sacramento, CA 95814 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Finance SECTION 28.00 APPLICATION 915 - L Street DF-90 Sacramento, CA 95814 IMS Mail Code: A-15 Please report dollars in thousands. DEPARTMENT ITEM NO./ NOTIFICATION LETTER TO LEGISLATURE: FISCAL YEAR 30-DAY NOTICE REQUEST WAIVER Department of Public Health OF 30-DAY NOTICE 2020-21 PROGRAM TITLE PER GOVERNOR’S BUDGET: Public & Environmental Healt CURRENTLY REQUESTED CHANGE TOTAL FUNDING (SPECIFY FUND) BUDGETED (+) OR (-) 4265-611-0995 435,910 +1,187,4981,623,408 (Check appropriate boxes) The funds will be expended for a purpose that is consistent with state law (explain use of funds in Part A below). The funds are made available to the state under conditions permitting their use only for a specified purpose, and the additional expenditure proposed under this section would apply to that specified funding purpose (as supported by explanation for the purpose of the funds). Acceptance of additional funding does not impose on the state any requirement to commit or expend new state funds for any program or purpose. The need exists to expend the additional funding during the current fiscal year (explain in Part B below). This application is provided to Finance within 45-days of official notice of receipt of funds. Explanation of delayed notification to Finance is attached (required if 45-day notification period is exceeded). A copy of the official notice of fund availability is attached to this application. One-time expenditure. Ongoing commitment from this source (if checked, explain under Program Proposal). Matching funds required (if checked, explain under Program Proposal). Expenditure either supplements or supplants an existing state-funded program (if checked, explain under Program Proposal). PART A: For what purpose will the funds be expended? This funding to local health jurisdictions may be used to support the public health workforce, laboratory testing, epidemiological surveillance, contact tracing, and expanding key partnerships. PART B: Explain the need to expend the funds in the current fiscal year, including the consequence of waiting until budget year to expend the funds: The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) through Heluna Health as its designated bona fide agent received approximately $1.7 billion. CDPH plans to allocate 70% or approximately $1.2 billion of this funding to local health jurisdictions. As with previous ELC Enhancing Detection funding which provided support for COVID-19 activities. PROGRAM PROPOSAL (Attach additional information as necessary) TITLE: STATUTORY AUTHORITY: (state, federal, as appropriate) EPIDEMIOLOGY AND LABORATORY Federal CAPACITY (ELC) DESCRIPTION: The funding is proposed to support the following six (6) strategies: 1.Enhance Laboratory, Surveillance, Informatics and other Workforce Capacity; 2.Strengthen Laboratory Testing; 3.Advance Electronic Data Exchange at Public Health Laboratories; 4.Improve Public Health Surveillance and Reporting of Electronic Health Data; 5.Use Laboratory Data to Enhance Investigation, Response and Prevention (Contact Tracing); and 6.Coordinate and Engage with Partners. JUSTIFICATION: These additional resources, per the “Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021”, are provided to “prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus” by supporting testing, case investigation and contact tracing, surveillance, containment, and mitigation. These activities are time sensitive, and require the immediate execution in the current fiscal year. SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE: BUDGET OFFICER:DATE:DATE SUBMITTED TO LEGISLATURE: DIRECTOR: DATE: PPBA: DATE: 1/29/2021 1/29/2021 Print Form Reset Form STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUDGET REVISION STD. 26 (REV. 9-94) SEE SAM SECTION 6230, ET SEQ. FOR INSTRUCTIONS--to fill out form online, click in Department Name field. FUND DEPARTMENT NAME DOCUMENT NUMBER BR-21 4265 - California Department of Public Health General Fund (0001) FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 INCREASE (+) OR DECREASE (-) AMOUNTS SOURCE OF FUNDS REVISION APPROVED REVISION REQUESTED AVAILABLE (D EPT. OF F INANCE USE ONLY) APPROPRIATION (List adjustments in detail): 4265-111-0001, Chapter 6, Statutes of 2020, (Budget 99,971,000 Act 2020) TOTAL (Must equal the NET 99,971,000 APPROPRIATIONS TOTAL below) UNSCHEDULED APPROPRIATIONS: LIST OF PROGRAMS, CATEGORIES OR PROJECTS IN SCHEDULED APPROPRIATION: 1)4040-Public Health Emergency Preparedness4,960,000 2)4045-Public and Environmental Health244,921,000 1,187,49,000 Budget Revision-08 286,000,000 3)Reimbursements to 4045-Public and Environmental Health-149,910,000-1,187,49,000 Budget Revision-08-286,000,000 99,971,000 NET APPROPRIATION TOTAL PURPOSE OF REVISION (List in detail, including workload, fiscal history on capital outlay, and cross-reference supporting and related documents.) C received $1. billion throughthe “ ” . Pursuant to Control Section of the Budget Act of 2020, CDPH requests a $1.2 billion adjustment to local assistance to support a broad range of COVID-19 related activities. (for additional space, see reverse) REQUESTED BY RECOMMENDED BY (Department) APPROVED BY (Dept. of Finance) NAME NAME NAME TITLE DATETITLE DATE TITLE DATE 1/28/2021 Principal Program Budget Analyst 1/29/2021 Budget Officer Branch Chief 1/28/21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 BUDGET REVISION STD. 26 (REV. 9-94) (REVERSE) SEE SAM SECTION 6230, ET SEQ. FOR INSTRUCTIONS INCREASE (+) OR DECREASE (-) AMOUNTS APPROVED BUDGET ALLOTMENT TITLES AVAILABLE REQUESTED (D EPT. OF F INANCE USE ONLY) UNALLOTTED BALANCES: OPERATING EXPENSES PERSONAL SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT TOTALS PURPOSE OF REVISION (Con'td): Local Health Jursidiction (LHJ) Funding Distribution For the ELC Grant Funding Formula: Population, Poverty and Race/Ethnicity Description of funding formula: Each California LHJ, excluding Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Pasadena, is awarded a base of $1,000,000. The balance of funds are distributed based on the proportion each LHJ contributes to the 2019 population (50% of allocation), the proportion each LHJ contributes to the 2019 population in poverty (25% of allocation), and the proportion each LHJ contributes to the population that is Black/African American, Latinx, or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (25% of allocation). Population and race/ethnicity data are from the Department of Finance, and population in poverty are calculated using 2019 Census Estimates. LHJTotalLHJTotal 1 Alameda HD 54,086,796Orange 115,488,386 Alpine 1,039,587 - Pasadena Amador 2,239,091Placer 12,177,694 Berkeley 5,805,600Plumas 1,599,671 Butte 9,107,329Riverside 101,417,767 Calaveras 2,396,622Sacramento 59,781,149 Colusa 1,941,647San Benito 3,472,678 Contra Costa 39,451,315San Bernardino 98,066,203 Del Norte 2,108,128San Diego 123,774,567 El Dorado 6,503,584San Francisco 28,952,934 Fresno 50,590,289San Joaquin 32,682,786 Glenn 2,190,179San Luis Obispo 10,711,455 Humboldt 6,114,292San Mateo 25,313,712 Imperial 11,470,855Santa Barbara 19,162,899 Inyo 1,631,761Santa Clara 62,183,150 Kern 45,144,117Santa Cruz 11,079,439 Kings 8,389,941Shasta 6,975,884 Lake 3,493,388Sierra 1,102,958 Lassen 2,130,829Siskiyou 2,578,510 -Solano 16,415,577 Long Beach -Sonoma 17,813,262 Los Angeles HD Madera 8,738,220Stanislaus 24,639,154 Marin 8,585,474Sutter 4,861,952 Mariposa 1,599,662Tehama 3,506,043 Mendocino 4,433,407Trinity 1,517,396 Merced 14,952,065Tulare 25,547,375 Modoc 1,361,816Tuolumne 2,685,618 Mono 1,463,197Ventura 32,125,196 Monterey 20,479,442Yolo 10,468,641 Napa 5,870,118Yuba 4,115,803 Nevada 3,960,818 Total Allocation: 1,187,497,429 Miniumum Allocation: 1,039,587 Maximum Allocation: 123,774,567 1 - Alameda Health Department (HD) excludes City of Berkeley 2 - Los Angeles, including Cities of Pasadena and Long Beach, was excluded as they were separately funded by the ELC grant. January 29, 2021 Dr. Ghaly update, February 2, 2021 Dr. Ghaly 12,064 positive cases 2/2 16,798 7-day average 7.2% 14-day positivity rate 6.4% 7-day positivity rate 38% decrease in 14-day rate Covid hospitalizations have decreased 28.8% over last 14 days ICU have decreased 18.39% over last 14-days Projections are anticipated to decrease to 6,557 by 3/4/2021 for hospitalizations 4 weeks out, we see the following numbers: . We think of this as a projection, not a model Over the past two months we have been talking about variants Ca is actively sequencing variants, building capacity to do even more West Coast variants: the number of B.1.429 variant is 767 and the number of B.1.427 is 290 UK variant: 133 B.1.7 variant cases have been reported in 5 counties Face masks are the most powerful tools we have in reducing transmission of covid Vaccines have been the major work effort Get notified when its your turn to get the covid vaccine by signing up at Myturn.ca.gov We continue to work with manufacturers and others to see what we need to do to get more vaccines to CA LA and SD counties are now up and running on Myturn.ca.gov As of 2/1, 3,523,111 covid-19 vaccines have been administered in CA We are advancing equity this continues to be a key effort in our pandemic response We cannot wait long to vaccinate the communities that have been disproportionately impacted by covid We are seeing more counties eek into that one week eligible phase to move forward look forward to seeing ore counties move through the blueprint We want to see an exciting day and event for many for Super Bowl but we want to make sure it does not become the next big spread event ABC 7 Bay Area You said we have to make a choice between speed and equity but no data has been released, please explain Dr. Ghaly We are working with local partners to get as complete data as we can I am not sure when we will be releasing it but we want to release it as complete as possible Kaiser Health News With arrangement with BS and KP, which challenges are you trying to solve? Health equity metrics? Any sense of what amount will you be offering providers or metrics you will use? Dr. Ghaly Yolanda Richardson is working around the clock on this and will be here with us next week to update We are focusing on how do we make sure we have enough vaccination sites in the hardest hit communities? Will look at how do we use inventive dollars, not sure of the dollar amount San Jose Mercury News When will Ag workers be included? Since 65+ is getting prioritized, some are being pushed back Dr. Ghaly We know some counties have been able to start prioritizing ag workers We know that there will be more folks in these groups than we have supply for that will be one of our biggest challenges NY Times The BS and KP deal is there anything you can share on what contracts entail? Will BS and KP be in coordination with Myturn roll out? Dr. Ghaly Secretary Richardson will have a lot more to share on that next week-she and her team are largely leading that charge on contract negotiation Myturn will be critical to get data into our systems in a timely way it will be important to BS and KP that it is running smoothly Myturn will be a prominent part of the conversation moving forward they are separate issues but work importantly together KNX News Radio How likely do you think it will be we see another surge this spring due to new variants? What is state doing to prepare? What came of coroner data from last April that went back to December 2019 Dr. Ghaly I have complete info on coroner info, will get back to you The presence of covid in CA is still very real as is the possibility of a surge It comes back to our behaviors and personal responsibility There are real concerns with the variant Together with testing, sequencing, and watching trends we are working to prepare to deliver all the services to the patients who need it LA Times Will there be any special consideration for those with disabilities? Second west coast variant? Dr. Ghaly They are considered the same variant, just different mutations, they are looking to determine if it is more contagious We are working with the disability community to galvanize around a policy that brings together a plan to vaccinate those individuals in the same vein as 65+ AP Sounds like some kind of new plan for those with disabilities will be coming forward? Timeline? Can you explain how state chose Blue Shield for this new partnership? Estimated cost? What about people already waiting appointments under existing system? Dr. Ghaly Working now to bring together stakeholders and advocacy groups to make sure those with severe disabilities get the vaccine in a thoughtful and equitable way and that will drive our timeline for when there is an announcement I am looking forward to when we have a plan that focuses on these populations and meets the needs of the most vulnerable Part of the transition and collaboration is to ensure those who are cued up and ready to get their appointment and vaccine that we do not interrupt or disrupt this in any way Politico We heard much about homeless or incarcerated lately. Where are they in the phase? When will more detailed guidance be out on Phase 1B? Dr. Ghaly That guidance will be out soon and posted shortly, hopefully between now and next week In terms of the homeless and incarcerated we are working with counties to determine how and when We are focused on the most vulnerable in each population. As soon as we get through some more of the additional stakeholder and planning meetings for the disabled and most vulnerable, we will. Nothing specific or concrete at this moment Thank you for tolerating another long conversation Please be safe this weekend with Super Bowl Sunday