The impact of AB 32 on state laws is significant as it broadens the scope of telehealth services permissible under the Medi-Cal program, particularly during times when physical visits may be impractical or impossible. By allowing audio-only interactions, the bill aims to address barriers faced by individuals who lack the necessary technology or high-speed internet access, thereby promoting greater inclusivity in health care services. This change intends to align state provisions more closely with current technological capabilities and patient needs.
Assembly Bill No. 32, known as AB 32, amends Sections 14132.100 and 14132.725 of the Welfare and Institutions Code related to the provision of telehealth services under the Medi-Cal program. The bill expands the ability of Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and Rural Health Clinics (RHC) to establish new patient relationships through audio-only synchronous interactions, especially in cases involving sensitive services. This alteration is aimed at increasing accessibility to health care for low-income individuals and those without reliable access to video technology.
The sentiment surrounding AB 32 is largely positive, especially among health care advocates and providers who see this legislation as a vital step forward in adapting to modern health care delivery methods. Supporters argue that this bill will enhance service reach and improve patient outcomes, especially for those in underserved areas. Nonetheless, there are concerns among some legislators regarding the potential implications for the quality of care, as audio-only interactions may not be suitable for all medical assessments.
Notably, some contention arises from the inclusion of provisions that allow exceptions to established rules against audio-only interactions in establishing new patient relationships. Critics express worries about maintaining care standards and the risk of misdiagnosis when health care services lack visual assessments. The bill also includes considerations for broadband access when granting these exceptions, reflecting the ongoing debate over technology accessibility in rural and low-income populations.