California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB356

Introduced
1/30/25  
Refer
3/17/25  
Report Pass
3/17/25  
Refer
3/18/25  
Refer
3/17/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Report Pass
3/17/25  
Refer
4/10/25  
Refer
3/18/25  
Refer
3/18/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/10/25  

Caption

Health care districts: County of San Diego.

Impact

One of the central provisions of AB 356 is the requirement for the working group to conduct a comprehensive study on the practices of general acute care hospitals and licensed healthcare providers, particularly focusing on facility fees that patients face when these fees are not covered by their insurance. The findings from this study are to be reported to the Legislature by June 1, 2026, with the intention of evaluating the capacity of current healthcare systems to meet the needs of underserved populations and improving access to healthcare services across the region. The bill also specifies that it will be repealed on June 1, 2030, which sets a timeline for legislative review and ensures that the issues addressed remain current.

Summary

Assembly Bill 356, introduced by Assembly Member Patel, aims to address healthcare service provision in the northern region of San Diego County. The bill mandates the Department of Health Care Access and Information to convene a working group that will study and make recommendations regarding healthcare services in designated health care districts. This working group will include a range of stakeholders, such as representatives from various health care districts, hospitals, and relevant trade associations, ensuring a collaborative approach to improving healthcare delivery in the area.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 356 appears largely supportive, particularly among healthcare advocates who recognize the necessity for a focused study on service delivery in San Diego's northern region. This area has unique healthcare challenges, and the establishment of a working group is viewed as a proactive step to ensure that local needs are being addressed systematically. However, there may be some apprehension from healthcare providers regarding the potential outcomes of the study and its implications on current billing practices and operational realities, particularly concerning additional regulations that may emerge from the recommendations.

Contention

A point of contention may arise regarding the study of facility fees, which is a sensitive area in healthcare billing practices. Healthcare districts and providers might express concerns about how the findings could lead to stricter regulations or changes in how services are billed, potentially impacting their revenue streams. Additionally, determining what resources and structures are needed to adequately serve vulnerable communities could lead to debates about the distribution of funding and resources among different healthcare facilities within the region.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB844

Green Empowerment Zone for the Northern Waterfront area of the County of Contra Costa.

CA SB228

Civilian youth opportunities program.

CA SB69

North Coast Railroad Authority: Great Redwood Trail Agency: rail rights-of-way: Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District.

CA AB284

Department of Justice: officer-involved shootings: report.

CA AB482

California Table Grape Commission.

CA AB1348

Average daily attendance: emergencies: immigration enforcement activity.

CA AB970

Insurance: Climate and Sustainability Insurance and Risk Reduction Program.

CA AB117

Air Quality Improvement Program: electric bicycles.