#financial consultant in Santa Rosa and Sacramento

[sugarmancompany-blog]

Need To File Business Bankruptcy in Oakland and San Francisco, CA

Running the day-to-day business may become too challenging for comfort many a time. Both small and big businesses may have to borrow money with their debt escalating by the day. Filing business bankruptcy in Oakland and San Francisco, CA, may be the only way out. The company management or the business owner needs to turn to a financial expert. This will enable them to gain perspective and understand the associated advantages, including being left alone by the creditors.

Going through the related information is essential after being convinced that bankruptcy is the best way forward. Moreover, the financial advisor is sure to be knowledgeable enough to offer alternatives based on the circumstances. The debtor will surely be confused by the different bankruptcy options available to American citizens. Having a financial consultant check the needs and offer advice is the right way to proceed with the bankruptcy filing process.

Some of the reasons to go ahead and file for bankruptcy include the following:-

The process of filing for bankruptcy for small business entities has been made smooth and hassle-free courtesy of the “Small Business Reorganization Act “that became law in 2019. The provisions offered to business entities struggling for funds are the following opportunities:

· Streamlining the Reorganization process- The associated costs for obtaining the procedure have been removed with the requirements of a corporate reorganization made easier for smaller entities. Such business owners can submit their restructure plan all the more quickly, with acceptance being a matter of days.

· Trustee Appointment- It is necessary for the small business to appoint a trustee when filing for bankruptcy. This trustee must assist the debtor in developing a reorganization plan. Facilitating the new plan and monitoring the fulfillment of the plan is also the trustee’s responsibility. ​ · Reorganization Plan- The Reorganization Act also empowers the court to approve the debtor’s plan when it meets all the specifications. The legal authorities will not entertain the creditor who objects to such a plan.

· Discharge Limitations- The court will also allow the debtor to pay off the dues within a period of 3 to 5 years. The business entity will be absolved of the liability after repayment of dues. There are a few exceptions to this rule, however.

· Modification of Home Mortgage- The business owner is free to modify the existing mortgage on the residence even after filing for business bankruptcy. This rule will remain active even if the business owner has secured the home loan in connection with the business.

· Administrative Expenses-There are no administrative expenses claims to be paid by the debtor. The post-petition service and goods claims are waived as well.

Hiring the right financial consultant in Santa Rosa and Sacramento, CA, is paramount. Seeking out the services of a firm with a proven track record of problem-solving for individuals and business entities is the best way to resolve all financial issues. 

[stephenmccull]

California Shies Away From Calls To Eliminate Restrictions On Nurse Practitioners

As the demand for health care workers surges with the coronavirus case count, many states are rushing to lift restrictions on nurse practitioners, who provide much of the same care as doctors do.

But California allows nurse practitioners to work only under the supervision of a doctor, and most limitations on their practice are likely to hold.

Although easing restrictions is a simple regulatory matter elsewhere, such proposals in California are dragged down by decades of contentious political fighting — and the state’s powerful doctors’ lobby argues that California already has enough providers.

Don't Miss A Story

Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition newsletter.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

These “are often some of the definitive health care battles that happen in Sacramento,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant who has been analyzing California politics for more than 25 years. “They’re evergreen fights, they never go away.”

Nurse practitioners are highly trained nurses with at least a master’s degree. By comparison, registered nurses have at least an associate’s degree.

There are more than 290,000 nurse practitioners in the country, and about 27,000 of them practice in California.

In 28 states plus the District of Columbia, nurse practitioners can practice much like a physician: They can provide primary care, write prescriptions and see patients. Some of those states require physician supervision when nurse practitioners are just starting out, but most allow them to operate without oversight right away.

But 22 states always require physician oversight, including California. Nurse practitioners in the Golden State must have a formal “collaboration” or supervision agreement with a physician who reviews their charts a few times each year.

In March, Alex Azar, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, encouraged governors to lift supervision requirements on some medical professionals to provide more flexibility for the health care system to respond to COVID-19.

Five states have suspended these requirements and an additional 12 have modified them to give providers with extra training more independence, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

The Mississippi Board of Nursing rushed to give nurse practitioners more authority to prescribe drugs on March 16. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers suspended supervision requirements on March 27, as did Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear on March 31. New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy lifted all supervision requirements for physician assistants and advanced practice nurses April 1.

Yet California has been cautious.

In a March 30 executive order, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the state Department of Consumer Affairs, which controls professional licensing, the power to change or temporarily waive regulations to let the health care workforce respond to the crisis.

That opened the door for nurse practitioners to ask the department to kill the supervision requirements without actually lifting them.

“In some ways, it created a bit of a buffer between him and these decisions,” said Garrett Chan, president and CEO of HealthImpact, a group that studies the nursing workforce in California.

On Tuesday, the department acted. It temporarily lifted the cap on how many nurse practitioners each physician could supervise. Instead of one physician supervising four nurse practitioners, physicians can supervise an unlimited number of nurse practitioners.

“It’s unclear how this is helping anybody,” Chan said.

Veronica Harms, the department’s deputy director of communications, said via email that the department didn’t eliminate the supervision requirements altogether because it wants to keep patients safe while responding to the needs of the health care system.

“The Department approved what was needed to meet the immediate demand for health care,” Harms wrote.

Nurse practitioners have tried for years to get the authority to practice independently in California, and have been repeatedly thwarted by the powerful California Medical Association, which represents more than 48,000 doctors.

Doctors have a financial incentive to keep overseeing nurse practitioners. In exchange for reviewing charts and prescriptions every few months, physicians bill nurse practitioners between $5,000 and $15,000 per year, according to a report by the California Health Care Foundation and the University of California-San Francisco. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

The association has one of the strongest lobbies in Sacramento and contributed almost $11 million, primarily to state legislative candidates, since mid-January 2019. It has fought for years against lifting the supervision requirements on nurse practitioners, defeating at least three such “scope of practice” bills in the legislature.

Most recently, the association opposed AB-890, which died in committee last year and was reintroduced in January. The bill, introduced by Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa), created two ways for nurse practitioners to operate without physician supervision.

Sonia Luckey, a nurse practitioner, practices family medicine at a clinic in Newport Beach, California. She also has psychiatric training, but physician supervision requirements prevent her from fully caring for her patients’ mental health needs, she says.(Photo courtesy of Sonia Luckey)

The California Medical Association wrote in an opposition letter that the measure would lead to “diminishing the quality of care for and lowering the standards for licensed individuals practicing medicine in the state.”

“It’s politics,” said Susanne Phillips, the associate dean of clinical affairs at the University of California-Irvine School of Nursing. “We have a very, very strong medical lobby in the state of California. They do not want to see California go to full-practice authority.”

Now, the association is arguing that the state already has enough providers to address the pandemic because many doctors have been laying off staff and closing their offices.

“In a world where you have primary care physicians and literally thousands of other physicians out of work, I’m not sure what eliminating supervision of nurse practitioners gets you,” said Anthony York, spokesperson for the California Medical Association.

The association argues that California has slowed the virus’s spread enough to avoid the severe health care provider shortages seen in harder-hit places like New York, Spain and Italy. Many California emergency rooms are operating under capacity, not inundated, York added.

But nurse practitioners counter that emergency room statistics alone offer an incomplete view of the crisis.

If nurse practitioners had the ability to practice independently, said Phillips of UC-Irvine, they would have the flexibility to treat patients in different settings, which would relieve pressure on hospitals and prove healthier for patients. For instance, a nurse practitioner could treat a new mother and her baby at an outpatient facility instead of in the hospital, where both patients and providers could be exposed to the virus.

“California’s current statutory scheme does not allow NPs to provide care in settings and communities that are in desperate need,” wrote the California Association for Nurse Practitioners, along with more than a dozen other groups, in a letter to the Department of Consumer Affairs on April 1. “California NPs are more prepared than ever to help address this public health crisis and to provide critically-needed care across the state.”

For nurse practitioner Sonia Luckey, who practices at Providence ExpressCare, a primary care clinic in Newport Beach, California, waiving supervision requirements would let her serve her patients more holistically, she said.

Luckey, 54, is certified in both family medicine and psychiatric medicine and has been practicing for 26 years. The physician who oversees her is an internist, not a psychiatrist, so that limits how she can use her psychiatry training.

Though Luckey knows how to treat patients with severe mental illness, she has to refer them to someone else.

“That whole mental health side of me is unable to respond to this crisis because of the way the laws are structured,” she said. “I could be seeing a whole other cohort of patients right now.”

The stress of the pandemic is worsening some of her patients’ mental health issues, she said. Shortness of breath, one hallmark of COVID-19, is also the hallmark of a panic or anxiety attack. Luckey said her extra years of schooling trained her to distinguish between the two in ways other providers can’t.

“I was able to prevent a hospital visit and prevent that exposure,” she said. “Not everybody can do that.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

California Shies Away From Calls To Eliminate Restrictions On Nurse Practitioners published first on https://smartdrinkingweb.weebly.com/

[gordonwilliamsweb]

California Shies Away From Calls To Eliminate Restrictions On Nurse Practitioners

As the demand for health care workers surges with the coronavirus case count, many states are rushing to lift restrictions on nurse practitioners, who provide much of the same care as doctors do.

But California allows nurse practitioners to work only under the supervision of a doctor, and most limitations on their practice are likely to hold.

Although easing restrictions is a simple regulatory matter elsewhere, such proposals in California are dragged down by decades of contentious political fighting — and the state’s powerful doctors’ lobby argues that California already has enough providers.

Don't Miss A Story

Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition newsletter.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

These “are often some of the definitive health care battles that happen in Sacramento,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant who has been analyzing California politics for more than 25 years. “They’re evergreen fights, they never go away.”

Nurse practitioners are highly trained nurses with at least a master’s degree. By comparison, registered nurses have at least an associate’s degree.

There are more than 290,000 nurse practitioners in the country, and about 27,000 of them practice in California.

In 28 states plus the District of Columbia, nurse practitioners can practice much like a physician: They can provide primary care, write prescriptions and see patients. Some of those states require physician supervision when nurse practitioners are just starting out, but most allow them to operate without oversight right away.

But 22 states always require physician oversight, including California. Nurse practitioners in the Golden State must have a formal “collaboration” or supervision agreement with a physician who reviews their charts a few times each year.

In March, Alex Azar, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, encouraged governors to lift supervision requirements on some medical professionals to provide more flexibility for the health care system to respond to COVID-19.

Five states have suspended these requirements and an additional 12 have modified them to give providers with extra training more independence, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

The Mississippi Board of Nursing rushed to give nurse practitioners more authority to prescribe drugs on March 16. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers suspended supervision requirements on March 27, as did Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear on March 31. New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy lifted all supervision requirements for physician assistants and advanced practice nurses April 1.

Yet California has been cautious.

In a March 30 executive order, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the state Department of Consumer Affairs, which controls professional licensing, the power to change or temporarily waive regulations to let the health care workforce respond to the crisis.

That opened the door for nurse practitioners to ask the department to kill the supervision requirements without actually lifting them.

“In some ways, it created a bit of a buffer between him and these decisions,” said Garrett Chan, president and CEO of HealthImpact, a group that studies the nursing workforce in California.

On Tuesday, the department acted. It temporarily lifted the cap on how many nurse practitioners each physician could supervise. Instead of one physician supervising four nurse practitioners, physicians can supervise an unlimited number of nurse practitioners.

“It’s unclear how this is helping anybody,” Chan said.

Veronica Harms, the department’s deputy director of communications, said via email that the department didn’t eliminate the supervision requirements altogether because it wants to keep patients safe while responding to the needs of the health care system.

“The Department approved what was needed to meet the immediate demand for health care,” Harms wrote.

Nurse practitioners have tried for years to get the authority to practice independently in California, and have been repeatedly thwarted by the powerful California Medical Association, which represents more than 48,000 doctors.

Doctors have a financial incentive to keep overseeing nurse practitioners. In exchange for reviewing charts and prescriptions every few months, physicians bill nurse practitioners between $5,000 and $15,000 per year, according to a report by the California Health Care Foundation and the University of California-San Francisco. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

The association has one of the strongest lobbies in Sacramento and contributed almost $11 million, primarily to state legislative candidates, since mid-January 2019. It has fought for years against lifting the supervision requirements on nurse practitioners, defeating at least three such “scope of practice” bills in the legislature.

Most recently, the association opposed AB-890, which died in committee last year and was reintroduced in January. The bill, introduced by Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa), created two ways for nurse practitioners to operate without physician supervision.

Sonia Luckey, a nurse practitioner, practices family medicine at a clinic in Newport Beach, California. She also has psychiatric training, but physician supervision requirements prevent her from fully caring for her patients’ mental health needs, she says.(Photo courtesy of Sonia Luckey)

The California Medical Association wrote in an opposition letter that the measure would lead to “diminishing the quality of care for and lowering the standards for licensed individuals practicing medicine in the state.”

“It’s politics,” said Susanne Phillips, the associate dean of clinical affairs at the University of California-Irvine School of Nursing. “We have a very, very strong medical lobby in the state of California. They do not want to see California go to full-practice authority.”

Now, the association is arguing that the state already has enough providers to address the pandemic because many doctors have been laying off staff and closing their offices.

“In a world where you have primary care physicians and literally thousands of other physicians out of work, I’m not sure what eliminating supervision of nurse practitioners gets you,” said Anthony York, spokesperson for the California Medical Association.

The association argues that California has slowed the virus’s spread enough to avoid the severe health care provider shortages seen in harder-hit places like New York, Spain and Italy. Many California emergency rooms are operating under capacity, not inundated, York added.

But nurse practitioners counter that emergency room statistics alone offer an incomplete view of the crisis.

If nurse practitioners had the ability to practice independently, said Phillips of UC-Irvine, they would have the flexibility to treat patients in different settings, which would relieve pressure on hospitals and prove healthier for patients. For instance, a nurse practitioner could treat a new mother and her baby at an outpatient facility instead of in the hospital, where both patients and providers could be exposed to the virus.

“California’s current statutory scheme does not allow NPs to provide care in settings and communities that are in desperate need,” wrote the California Association for Nurse Practitioners, along with more than a dozen other groups, in a letter to the Department of Consumer Affairs on April 1. “California NPs are more prepared than ever to help address this public health crisis and to provide critically-needed care across the state.”

For nurse practitioner Sonia Luckey, who practices at Providence ExpressCare, a primary care clinic in Newport Beach, California, waiving supervision requirements would let her serve her patients more holistically, she said.

Luckey, 54, is certified in both family medicine and psychiatric medicine and has been practicing for 26 years. The physician who oversees her is an internist, not a psychiatrist, so that limits how she can use her psychiatry training.

Though Luckey knows how to treat patients with severe mental illness, she has to refer them to someone else.

“That whole mental health side of me is unable to respond to this crisis because of the way the laws are structured,” she said. “I could be seeing a whole other cohort of patients right now.”

The stress of the pandemic is worsening some of her patients’ mental health issues, she said. Shortness of breath, one hallmark of COVID-19, is also the hallmark of a panic or anxiety attack. Luckey said her extra years of schooling trained her to distinguish between the two in ways other providers can’t.

“I was able to prevent a hospital visit and prevent that exposure,” she said. “Not everybody can do that.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

California Shies Away From Calls To Eliminate Restrictions On Nurse Practitioners published first on https://nootropicspowdersupplier.tumblr.com/

[dinafbrownil]

California Shies Away From Calls To Eliminate Restrictions On Nurse Practitioners

As the demand for health care workers surges with the coronavirus case count, many states are rushing to lift restrictions on nurse practitioners, who provide much of the same care as doctors do.

But California allows nurse practitioners to work only under the supervision of a doctor, and most limitations on their practice are likely to hold.

Although easing restrictions is a simple regulatory matter elsewhere, such proposals in California are dragged down by decades of contentious political fighting — and the state’s powerful doctors’ lobby argues that California already has enough providers.

Don't Miss A Story

Subscribe to KHN’s free Weekly Edition newsletter.

Sign Up

Please confirm your email address below:

Sign Up

These “are often some of the definitive health care battles that happen in Sacramento,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican political consultant who has been analyzing California politics for more than 25 years. “They’re evergreen fights, they never go away.”

Nurse practitioners are highly trained nurses with at least a master’s degree. By comparison, registered nurses have at least an associate’s degree.

There are more than 290,000 nurse practitioners in the country, and about 27,000 of them practice in California.

In 28 states plus the District of Columbia, nurse practitioners can practice much like a physician: They can provide primary care, write prescriptions and see patients. Some of those states require physician supervision when nurse practitioners are just starting out, but most allow them to operate without oversight right away.

But 22 states always require physician oversight, including California. Nurse practitioners in the Golden State must have a formal “collaboration” or supervision agreement with a physician who reviews their charts a few times each year.

In March, Alex Azar, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, encouraged governors to lift supervision requirements on some medical professionals to provide more flexibility for the health care system to respond to COVID-19.

Five states have suspended these requirements and an additional 12 have modified them to give providers with extra training more independence, according to the American Association of Nurse Practitioners.

The Mississippi Board of Nursing rushed to give nurse practitioners more authority to prescribe drugs on March 16. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers suspended supervision requirements on March 27, as did Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear on March 31. New Jersey Gov. Philip Murphy lifted all supervision requirements for physician assistants and advanced practice nurses April 1.

Yet California has been cautious.

In a March 30 executive order, Gov. Gavin Newsom directed the state Department of Consumer Affairs, which controls professional licensing, the power to change or temporarily waive regulations to let the health care workforce respond to the crisis.

That opened the door for nurse practitioners to ask the department to kill the supervision requirements without actually lifting them.

“In some ways, it created a bit of a buffer between him and these decisions,” said Garrett Chan, president and CEO of HealthImpact, a group that studies the nursing workforce in California.

On Tuesday, the department acted. It temporarily lifted the cap on how many nurse practitioners each physician could supervise. Instead of one physician supervising four nurse practitioners, physicians can supervise an unlimited number of nurse practitioners.

“It’s unclear how this is helping anybody,” Chan said.

Veronica Harms, the department’s deputy director of communications, said via email that the department didn’t eliminate the supervision requirements altogether because it wants to keep patients safe while responding to the needs of the health care system.

“The Department approved what was needed to meet the immediate demand for health care,” Harms wrote.

Nurse practitioners have tried for years to get the authority to practice independently in California, and have been repeatedly thwarted by the powerful California Medical Association, which represents more than 48,000 doctors.

Doctors have a financial incentive to keep overseeing nurse practitioners. In exchange for reviewing charts and prescriptions every few months, physicians bill nurse practitioners between $5,000 and $15,000 per year, according to a report by the California Health Care Foundation and the University of California-San Francisco. (California Healthline is an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.)

The association has one of the strongest lobbies in Sacramento and contributed almost $11 million, primarily to state legislative candidates, since mid-January 2019. It has fought for years against lifting the supervision requirements on nurse practitioners, defeating at least three such “scope of practice” bills in the legislature.

Most recently, the association opposed AB-890, which died in committee last year and was reintroduced in January. The bill, introduced by Assembly member Jim Wood (D-Santa Rosa), created two ways for nurse practitioners to operate without physician supervision.

Sonia Luckey, a nurse practitioner, practices family medicine at a clinic in Newport Beach, California. She also has psychiatric training, but physician supervision requirements prevent her from fully caring for her patients’ mental health needs, she says.(Photo courtesy of Sonia Luckey)

The California Medical Association wrote in an opposition letter that the measure would lead to “diminishing the quality of care for and lowering the standards for licensed individuals practicing medicine in the state.”

“It’s politics,” said Susanne Phillips, the associate dean of clinical affairs at the University of California-Irvine School of Nursing. “We have a very, very strong medical lobby in the state of California. They do not want to see California go to full-practice authority.”

Now, the association is arguing that the state already has enough providers to address the pandemic because many doctors have been laying off staff and closing their offices.

“In a world where you have primary care physicians and literally thousands of other physicians out of work, I’m not sure what eliminating supervision of nurse practitioners gets you,” said Anthony York, spokesperson for the California Medical Association.

The association argues that California has slowed the virus’s spread enough to avoid the severe health care provider shortages seen in harder-hit places like New York, Spain and Italy. Many California emergency rooms are operating under capacity, not inundated, York added.

But nurse practitioners counter that emergency room statistics alone offer an incomplete view of the crisis.

If nurse practitioners had the ability to practice independently, said Phillips of UC-Irvine, they would have the flexibility to treat patients in different settings, which would relieve pressure on hospitals and prove healthier for patients. For instance, a nurse practitioner could treat a new mother and her baby at an outpatient facility instead of in the hospital, where both patients and providers could be exposed to the virus.

“California’s current statutory scheme does not allow NPs to provide care in settings and communities that are in desperate need,” wrote the California Association for Nurse Practitioners, along with more than a dozen other groups, in a letter to the Department of Consumer Affairs on April 1. “California NPs are more prepared than ever to help address this public health crisis and to provide critically-needed care across the state.”

For nurse practitioner Sonia Luckey, who practices at Providence ExpressCare, a primary care clinic in Newport Beach, California, waiving supervision requirements would let her serve her patients more holistically, she said.

Luckey, 54, is certified in both family medicine and psychiatric medicine and has been practicing for 26 years. The physician who oversees her is an internist, not a psychiatrist, so that limits how she can use her psychiatry training.

Though Luckey knows how to treat patients with severe mental illness, she has to refer them to someone else.

“That whole mental health side of me is unable to respond to this crisis because of the way the laws are structured,” she said. “I could be seeing a whole other cohort of patients right now.”

The stress of the pandemic is worsening some of her patients’ mental health issues, she said. Shortness of breath, one hallmark of COVID-19, is also the hallmark of a panic or anxiety attack. Luckey said her extra years of schooling trained her to distinguish between the two in ways other providers can’t.

“I was able to prevent a hospital visit and prevent that exposure,” she said. “Not everybody can do that.”

This KHN story first published on California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

from Updates By Dina https://khn.org/news/california-shies-away-from-calls-to-eliminate-restrictions-on-nurse-practitioners/

[blockheadbrands]

North Coast Officials Feel Left Out Of Gov. Brown’s Plan To Tackle Marijuana’s Black Market

Will Houston of Cannifornian Reports:

Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed giving $14 million to his Department of Justice in 2018-19 to crack down on tax evasion, conspiracy and other financial crimes by the black market cannabis industry as well as stem the flow of illegal cannabis in the mail and parcel delivery systems.

While North Coast law enforcement officials, legislators and cannabis industry officials are supportive of the state’s efforts to address the black market, they also voiced various concerns about the proposal.

Brown’s May revise for the state budget would create five investigative teams based in Sacramento, Los Angeles, Fresno and San Diego. The department says enforcement efforts by the investigative teams would reduce the unfair advantage the black market has over the fledgling legal cannabis industry, cover enforcement gaps in illegal distribution, reduce environmental damage and recoup lost tax revenues.

California 2nd District Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Santa Rosa, said although he is encouraged by Brown’s commitment to provide resources to combat illicit cannabis businesses, none of the investigation teams are located in North Coast counties.

“I recognize that this is a statewide problem,” Wood said in a statement to the Times-Standard on Wednesday, “but the Emerald Triangle has been the epicenter of the cannabis industry and I would have preferred that a team be focused in our area to help support the many legitimate cannabis businesses that have stepped up to comply with the new licensing and regulatory processes.”

“In the meantime, four of my Assembly colleagues and I have requested $25 million in this year’s budget to fund grants at the local level for enforcement,” Wood continued.

The $25 million grant program would provide funding to local governments, which would have to provide a 25 percent match to receive the funds, according to the proposal.

This reporter reached out to the Department of Justice, Department of Finance and Brown’s office to clarify whether the investigative teams would be able to investigate cases outside the cities where they are based, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Related: Brown’s budget increases cannabis tax revenue estimates despite disappointing first quarter

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal said the governor should provide the funding to local law enforcement agencies rather than creating new bureaucratic entities that act separately from existing marijuana task forces. Honsal said he would instead like the Department of Justice to be referred to cases or piggyback on enforcement operations like California Department of Fish and Wildlife and State Water Board officials already do.

“That would force these people out of Sacramento, out of the Bay Area, out of Los Angeles and get out to the root of the problem where there is real tax evasion going on, where there’s real crime going on as far as white-collar crime in this,” Honsal said.

Honsal said he would like to see more about Wood’s proposal on the grants, but said he would also like to see some more state funding without strings attached or have to compete with other counties. This way, Honsal said he could hire more people on to the sheriff’s office cannabis enforcement division, which has five positions funded to cover the entire county.

“Marijuana enforcement is not just through harvest season anymore,” Honsal said. “This is a 365-day operation.”

North Coast state Sen. Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, said Brown’s proposal is a “smart move,” but said there should be an investigative team dedicated to the North Coast region.

“The North Coast is the heart of California’s cannabis country, which means we also have the lion’s share of the challenges related to the black market,” McGuire said Wednesday. “While the state has invested mightily in the [California Department of Fish and Wildlife] Watershed Enforcement Team, we need to continue to advance investments that will protect those who are legal and licensed and go after those bad apples that currently exist in the industry.”

Check out our updated map showing shops licensed to sell recreational cannabis in California.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Deputy Director of Communications Jordan Traverso said Brown’s budget does not increase funding for their department’s cannabis enforcement programs, which focuses on environmental violations and have been expanded since the industry has become more regulated.

The California Growers Association, which represents about 1,300 members in the industry as well as consultants and attorneys, has various views on Brown’s funding proposal, according to its Executive Director Hezekiah Allen.

For himself, Allen called Brown’s proposal a “measured and reasonable approach to enforcement perhaps a bit too soon and inconsistent with Prop. 64,” referring to the 2016 ballot initiative that legalized adult-use, recreational cannabis.

While he agrees that enforcement should eventually be funded, Allen said the state’s tax revenues are significantly lower than what was hoped for. He also said the cannabis market is failing, not to mention operating on temporary licenses and emergency rules. Allen said the state should use what funds are available for other important programs, such as substance abuse counseling and prevention for kids, which he said Proposition 64 prioritized.

Allen also argued the state could generate more revenue by allowing small and mid-sized cannabis businesses to receive tax breaks in the early years, which will allow them to get stable footing in the marketplace and eventually generate more revenue for the state.

“What’s really exciting to us is the prospect of tax reform,” Allen said. “We think that there are polices that could generate more revenue for the state and if we were generating additional revenue then sure, enforcement should be on the table. But given we have such a significant shortfall of projected revenue, it seems like we’re sort of in a bare minimums.”

TO READ MORE OF THIS ARTICLE ON CANNIFORNIAN, CLICK HERE.

https://www.thecannifornian.com/cannabis-news/north-coast-officials-feel-left-gov-browns-plan-tackle-marijuanas-black-market/

[sugarmancompany-blog]

Need For Forensic Accounting in San Jose and Santa Rosa, CA

An organization or firm with the expertise for problem-solving in the financial world is always in demand. Indeed, individuals and business entities turn to them to ensure compliance with standard regulations, enhance wealth, and make proper investments. Mitigation of risks is their forte as well. It is essential to contact financial consulting firms in San Francisco and Sacramento, CA, as and when required. ​ The advantages of consulting with the financial experts are manifold. It is their skills and thoughtful insights that display the path forward. While some of the consulting firms operate within a niche, others tackle complexities related to banking, investments, insurance, and other financial sectors. Whatever may be the area of consultation, almost all firms provide the following via their advice:-

Expertise: A layperson or a business owner highly acclaimed for business operations may lack an understanding of finances. Connecting with a reputed consultancy firm can provide the right solution. The experts running the firm are sure to be experts in their fields. They will understand the industry regulations, market trends, and best practices well. Conferring with them will enable the business owner or individual to obtain advice about making strategic decisions, implementing advanced technologies, and/or optimizing business processes.

Efficiency- Ensuring efficiency at all levels is crucial for the financial companies. Most of them seek advice from financial experts who provide timely consultation. Knowing that a slight improvement can result in huge savings, adding to the entity's profitability is essential. The consultancy firms are specialists in identifying the problem areas and pinpointing the inefficiencies. They provide timely advice on implementing modified strategies, thus ensuring solutions are provided. Optimization of diverse processes and reduction of operational costs can go a long way in improving the efficiency of the said business.

· Risk Management- All financial institutions must develop a foolproof risk management plan to protect their customers' assets. The consulting firm can help devise strategies that include development and management related to risk assessment, reduction of risks, and crisis response. Sagacious advice provided by consulting firms helps their clients meet their objectives without jeopardizing business profits or continuity

· Tax Assistance- The company is not always required to employ a separate tax expert. Instead, it is safe to rely on financial consultants adept at providing tax optimization services, too. The financial experts will not only do the tax planning but also disclose how to structure the taxes to minimize financial liabilities. The prospect of being asked to come for an IRS Audit becomes almost nonexistent.

· Stability- Having a financial consultant to fall back on as and when needed is a wonderful way to establish and maintain financial stability. They will guide their clients slowly but surely towards meeting the goals, thus establishing stability for good.

A business entity may appoint professionals for forensic accounting in San Jose and Santa Rosa, CA, to identify and recognize financial frauds being committed in the company. The specialized accountants also provide testimony for their clients at the court. 

[sugarmancompany-blog]

Business Bankruptcy in San Francisco and Sacramento, CA

Sugarman & Company LLP has provided many years of small business accounting services and financial forensic accounting. Our certified forensic accounting experts offer forensic accounting for businesses of all sizes.

[sugarmancompany-blog]

Sugarman & Company LLP is a consulting and accounting firm based in the San Francisco, CA, area. Our highly qualified and knowledgeable staff has provided financial accounting services, including financial forensics, litigation consulting, corporate bankruptcy, forensic accounting, and more!