Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs and charges it with administrative and enforcement duties related to the provision of medical services under the act. The act makes unprofessional conduct subject to discipline by the board the regular practice of medicine in a specified hospital having 5 or more physicians and surgeons on the medical staff without rules established by the board of directors to govern the operation of the hospital. The act requires the rules to include a provision for the organization of physicians and surgeons into a formal medical staff with staff appointments on an annual or biennial basis.

This bill would revise that provision to instead require staff reappointments at least every 3 years.

Existing law requires that physician and surgeon staff require members of the staff to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical and other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate committee or committees of the staff at the time of original application for appointment to the staff and at least every 2 years thereafter.

This bill would instead require physician and surgeon staff to require members of the staff to demonstrate their ability at least every 3 years thereafter.

Existing law provides for the licensure and inspection of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health and makes a violation of those provisions a crime.

This bill would require the governing body of a general acute care hospital or an acute psychiatric hospital to require that medical staff establish controls that are designed to ensure the achievement and maintenance of high standards of professional ethical practices, including a requirement that all members of the medical staff be required to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical or other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate medical staff committee or committees at the time of original application for appointment to the medical staff and every 3 years thereafter. The bill would prohibit the department from requiring an acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every 3 years. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs and charges it with administrative and enforcement duties related to the provision of medical services under the act. The act makes unprofessional conduct subject to discipline by the board the regular practice of medicine in a specified hospital having 5 or more physicians and surgeons on the medical staff without rules established by the board of directors to govern the operation of the hospital. The act requires the rules to include a provision for the organization of physicians and surgeons into a formal medical staff with staff appointments on an annual or biennial basis.

This bill would revise that provision to instead require staff reappointments at least every 3 years.

Existing law requires that physician and surgeon staff require members of the staff to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical and other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate committee or committees of the staff at the time of original application for appointment to the staff and at least every 2 years thereafter.

This bill would instead require physician and surgeon staff to require members of the staff to demonstrate their ability at least every 3 years thereafter.

Existing law provides for the licensure and inspection of health facilities, including general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals, by the State Department of Public Health and makes a violation of those provisions a crime.

This bill would require the governing body of a general acute care hospital or an acute psychiatric hospital to require that medical staff establish controls that are designed to ensure the achievement and maintenance of high standards of professional ethical practices, including a requirement that all members of the medical staff be required to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical or other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate medical staff committee or committees at the time of original application for appointment to the medical staff and every 3 years thereafter. The bill would prohibit the department from requiring an acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every 3 years. Because a violation of this requirement would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate health facilities, including, among others, general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires a health care practitioner to disclose, while working, their name and license status on a name tag in at least 18-point type, subject to specified exceptions.

This bill would require general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals hospitals, except those operated by the State Department of State Hospitals, to develop and implement a policy that requires all employees who have patient contact to wear an identification tag while on duty that contains prescribed information. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires the State Department of Public Health to license and regulate health facilities, including, among others, general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. A violation of these provisions is a crime. Existing law requires a health care practitioner to disclose, while working, their name and license status on a name tag in at least 18-point type, subject to specified exceptions.

This bill would require general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals to develop and implement a policy that requires all employees who have patient contact to wear an identification tag while on duty that contains prescribed information. The bill would authorize the hospital to make an exemption from this requirement for purposes of employee safety. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law sets forth various functions and duties for the State Department of State Hospitals with respect to the administration of state institutions for the care and treatment of persons with mental health disorders. Existing law, the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, among other provisions, authorizes the involuntary detention for up to 180 days, of certain persons who have been determined to be imminently dangerous, as specified. The act also authorizes the appointment of a conservator of the person, or of the estate, or of the person and the estate, for a person who is gravely disabled or impaired by chronic alcoholism. Existing law requires a conservator appointed pursuant to these provisions to place the conservatee according to specified requirements and authorizes the placement to include certain facilities, including, among others, a state hospital. Existing law requires counties to contract with the department for the number and types of state hospital beds required by the counties for purposes of the act, and requires the contract to set forth the specific type of services requested by the county. Existing law requires the department, in collaboration with counties, to prepare and publish a catalog of available state hospital services, and annually update the catalog.

This bill would require the department to make the catalog easily accessible on the departments internet website.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 1199

Author:(Patterson)

As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: HEALTH

Requires medical staff of hospitals to be reappointed every three years, rather than every two years, and prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring hospitals to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: CONCUR

Delete the previous version of the bill and instead require the medical staff of hospitals to be reappointed every three years, rather than every two years, and prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring hospitals to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

COMMENTS

According to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the accreditation period for most health care providers and suppliers participating in Medicare is 36 months. CMS recognizes several national accrediting organizations whose accreditation programs are deemed to meet or exceed applicable Medicare requirements, and many of these organizations operate on a three-year accreditation cycle. This framework has become a common model for periodic review and oversight of health care facilities and services participating in federal health care programs.

One of the nation's largest health care accrediting organizations, The Joint Commission, accredits and certifies more than 22,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. In 2022, The Joint Commission revised its hospital accreditation standards to permit practitioner reappointment and reprivileging at intervals not to exceed three years, replacing its previous two-year maximum cycle. The organization stated that the change was intended to reduce administrative burden while preserving hospitals' responsibility to continuously evaluate practitioner competence, professional performance, and clinical privileges through ongoing review processes. Other nationally recognized accrediting organizations, including DNV Healthcare USA and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, generally conduct facility accreditation reviews on three-year cycles recognized by CMS.

California's statutory framework governing hospital medical staff appointments predates these more recent accreditation changes. Under Business and Professions Code sections 2282 and 2453, appointments to a hospital's medical staff by the governing board, other than initial appointments, may not exceed two years in duration. Historically, hospitals have used these periodic reappointment reviews to evaluate a practitioner's licensure, training, competence, professional conduct, and clinical privileges. In addition to formal reappointment cycles, hospitals are generally required through accreditation standards, peer review programs, quality assurance activities, and medical staff bylaws to continuously monitor practitioner performance and patient safety throughout the appointment period.

Prior legislation. SB 642 (Kamlager) of 2021 would have prohibited a health facility from requiring a physician, as a condition of obtaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with policies that are not ratified by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly restrict the ability of the physician to provide a particular medical treatment, or from requiring a physician to obtain permission from a nonphysician to perform a medical treatment for which consent has been obtained from the patient, with certain exceptions. SB 642 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

According to the Author

According to the author, California's recredentialing deadlines are out of step with federal standards and industry practices. This leads to medical professionals being bogged down with administrative procedure instead of saving lives and healing people. This bill corrects this issue. Adjusting the recredentialing cycles to three years, instead of the current two years, will improve efficiency while maintaining the safeguards necessary for the medical field.

Arguments in Support

The California Hospital Association supports this bill and states that by aligning state law with existing national standards, this bill would allow hospitals, physician leaders, and medical staff professionals to spend less time on repetitive paperwork and more time on activities that directly improve patient care, support the health care workforce, and strengthen quality oversight. At a time when hospitals are facing significant workforce and financial pressures, reducing unnecessary administrative requirements is an important step toward ensuring that limited resources are focused where they matter most: caring for patients.

Arguments in Opposition

None to the current version of the bill.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES

ASM HEALTH: 16-0-0

YES: Bonta, Chen, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Carrillo, Flora, Mark González, Krell, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Sanchez, Schiavo, Sharp-Collins, Stefani

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 15-0-0

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Dixon, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta, Tangipa

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0-3

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bennett, Jeff Gonzalez, Nguyen

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

ASM HEALTH: 13-0-3

YES: Bonta, Sanchez, Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Caloza, Jeff Gonzalez, Johnson, Patel, Patterson, Celeste Rodriguez, Schiavo, Stefani

ABS, ABST OR NV: Carrillo, Mark González, Sharp-Collins

UPDATED

VERSION: June 11, 2026

CONSULTANT: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0004345

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1199

Author:(Patterson)

As Amended Ver:June 11, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires medical staff of hospitals to be reappointed every three years, rather than every two years, and prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring hospitals to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

Senate Amendments

Delete the previous version of the bill and instead require the medical staff of hospitals to be reappointed every three years, rather than every two years, and prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring hospitals to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

COMMENTS

According to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the accreditation period for most health care providers and suppliers participating in Medicare is 36 months. CMS recognizes several national accrediting organizations whose accreditation programs are deemed to meet or exceed applicable Medicare requirements, and many of these organizations operate on a three-year accreditation cycle. This framework has become a common model for periodic review and oversight of health care facilities and services participating in federal health care programs.

One of the nation's largest health care accrediting organizations, The Joint Commission, accredits and certifies more than 22,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. In 2022, The Joint Commission revised its hospital accreditation standards to permit practitioner reappointment and reprivileging at intervals not to exceed three years, replacing its previous two-year maximum cycle. The organization stated that the change was intended to reduce administrative burden while preserving hospitals' responsibility to continuously evaluate practitioner competence, professional performance, and clinical privileges through ongoing review processes. Other nationally recognized accrediting organizations, including DNV Healthcare USA and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, generally conduct facility accreditation reviews on three-year cycles recognized by CMS.

California's statutory framework governing hospital medical staff appointments predates these more recent accreditation changes. Under Business and Professions Code sections 2282 and 2453, appointments to a hospital's medical staff by the governing board, other than initial appointments, may not exceed two years in duration. Historically, hospitals have used these periodic reappointment reviews to evaluate a practitioner's licensure, training, competence, professional conduct, and clinical privileges. In addition to formal reappointment cycles, hospitals are generally required through accreditation standards, peer review programs, quality assurance activities, and medical staff bylaws to continuously monitor practitioner performance and patient safety throughout the appointment period.

Prior legislation. SB 642 (Kamlager) of 2021 would have prohibited a health facility from requiring a physician, as a condition of obtaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with policies that are not ratified by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly restrict the ability of the physician to provide a particular medical treatment, or from requiring a physician to obtain permission from a nonphysician to perform a medical treatment for which consent has been obtained from the patient, with certain exceptions. SB 642 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.

According to the Author

According to the author, California's recredentialing deadlines are out of step with federal standards and industry practices. This leads to medical professionals being bogged down with administrative procedure instead of saving lives and healing people. This bill corrects this issue. Adjusting the recredentialing cycles to three years, instead of the current two years, will improve efficiency while maintaining the safeguards necessary for the medical field.

Arguments in Support

The California Hospital Association supports this bill and states that by aligning state law with existing national standards, this bill would allow hospitals, physician leaders, and medical staff professionals to spend less time on repetitive paperwork and more time on activities that directly improve patient care, support the health care workforce, and strengthen quality oversight. At a time when hospitals are facing significant workforce and financial pressures, reducing unnecessary administrative requirements is an important step toward ensuring that limited resources are focused where they matter most: caring for patients.

Arguments in Opposition

None to the current version of the bill.

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, pursuant to Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.

VOTES:

ASM HEALTH: Vote Not Relevant

YES:

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: Vote Not Relevant

YES:

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: Vote Not Relevant

YES:

ABS, ABST OR NV:

SENATE FLOOR: 39-0-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: June 11, 2026

CONSULTANT: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097 FN: 0003426

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1199

Author: Patterson (R)

Amended: 6/11/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE BUS., PROF. & ECON. DEV. COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/22/26

AYES: Wahab, Choi, Archuleta, Arreguín, Caballero, Menjivar, Niello, Richardson, Strickland, Umberg

NO VOTE RECORDED: Smallwood-Cuevas

SENATE HEALTH COMMITTEE: 10-0, 7/1/26

AYES: Weber Pierson, Valladares, Caballero, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grove, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Smallwood-Cuevas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Rubio

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/27/25 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Medical staff: health care provider credentialing

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill authorizes hospitals to conduct medical staff reappointments and related competency reviews at least every three years rather than every two years.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Enacts the Medical Practice Act, which provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons. (Business and Professions Code BPC §§ 2000 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Medical Board of California (MBC) responsible for administering and enforcing the Medical Practice Act. (BPC § 2001)
3. Establishes the Osteopathic MBC (OMBC), which regulates osteopathic physicians and surgeons under the Osteopathic Act who possess effectively the same practice privileges and prescription authority as those regulated by MBC but with a training emphasis on diagnosis and treatment of patients through an integrated, whole-person approach. (BPC §§ 2450 et seq.)
4. Provides that references to the MBC or the term "board" refer to the OMBC where that board exercises the functions granted to it by the Osteopathic Act. (BPC § 2451)
5. Provides that the regular practice of medicine in a licensed general or specialized hospital with five or more physicians on the medical staff constitutes unprofessional conduct unless the hospital has adopted rules governing the operation of the hospital that, among other requirements, provide for a self-governing medical staff, periodic review of clinical experience and patient records, and the appointment of medical staff members. Provides that appointments to the medical staff shall be made by the hospital governing board and, except for initial appointments, shall be made for a period of not more than two years. (BPC § 2282.)
6. Provides that physicians and surgeons licensed by OMBC are to be accorded equal professional status and privileges as physicians licensed by MBC. Requires hospitals that grant staff privileges to osteopathic physicians and surgeons to provide for appointments to the medical staff by the governing board and, except for initial appointments, limits those appointments to a period not exceeding two years. (BPC § 2453.)
7. Authorizes licensed general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals to provide health care services outside the traditional hospital building in alternative settings, subject to approval and oversight by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Requires that services provided in these alternative settings remain under the responsibility of the hospital's governing body and medical staff and be subject to applicable licensing, quality, and patient safety requirements. (Health and Safety Code § 1275.6)

This bill:

1. Authorizes hospitals to conduct medical staff reappointments and related competency reviews at least every three years rather than every two years.
2. Requires the governing body of a general acute care hospital and an acute psychiatric hospital to require that the medical staff establish controls that are designed to ensure the achievement and maintenance of high standards of professional ethical practices, including the provision that all members of the medical staff be required to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical or other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate medical staff committee or committees, at the time of original application for appointment to the medical staff and every three years thereafter. Prohibits CDPH from requiring a general acute care hospital or an acute psychiatric hospital to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

Background

According to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the accreditation period for most health care providers and suppliers participating in Medicare is 36 months. CMS recognizes several national accrediting organizations whose accreditation programs are deemed to meet or exceed applicable Medicare requirements, and many of these organizations operate on a three-year accreditation cycle. This framework has become a common model for periodic review and oversight of health care facilities and services participating in federal health care programs.

One of the nation’s largest health care accrediting organizations, The Joint Commission, accredits and certifies more than 22,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. In 2022, The Joint Commission revised its hospital accreditation standards to permit practitioner reappointment and reprivileging at intervals not to exceed three years, replacing its previous two-year maximum cycle. The organization stated that the change was intended to reduce administrative burden while preserving hospitals' responsibility to continuously evaluate practitioner competence, professional performance, and clinical privileges through ongoing review processes. Other nationally recognized accrediting organizations, including DNV Healthcare USA and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care, generally conduct facility accreditation reviews on three-year cycles recognized by CMS.

California's statutory framework governing hospital medical staff appointments predates these more recent accreditation changes. Under BPC sections 2282 and 2453, appointments to a hospital’s medical staff by the governing board, other than initial appointments, may not exceed two years in duration. Historically, hospitals have used these periodic reappointment reviews to evaluate a practitioner’s licensure, training, competence, professional conduct, and clinical privileges. In addition to formal reappointment cycles, hospitals are generally required through accreditation standards, peer review programs, quality assurance activities, and medical staff bylaws to continuously monitor practitioner performance and patient safety throughout the appointment period.

Supporters of conforming California law to current accreditation standards argue that extending the maximum interval between formal reappointments would align state law with prevailing national practices and reduce administrative burden on hospitals and medical staff offices. They further note that hospitals would remain responsible for ongoing oversight activities, including peer review, professional practice evaluation, licensure verification, quality monitoring, and corrective action when warranted. As a result, proponents contend that extending the interval between formal reappointments may streamline administrative processes while preserving existing patient safety safeguards and quality assurance mechanisms.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/4/26)

California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
Physician Association of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/4/26)

None received

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: Supporters note that this bill represents a commonsense update to state law that would align California with current federal and national accreditation standards without weakening patient protections or diminishing hospital oversight of physician competence. Supporters write that hospitals retain the ability and obligation to take immediate action when issues related to quality, competence, or conduct are identified, stating that this bill would simply eliminate a redundant administrative requirement for practitioners who have no identified performance concerns. Supporters say the bill would allow hospitals, physician leaders, and medical staff professionals to spend less time on repetitive paperwork and more time on activities that directly improve patient care, support the health care workforce, and strengthen quality oversight.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 76-0, 5/27/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Bennett, Jeff Gonzalez, Nguyen

Prepared by: Sarah Mason / B., P. & E.D. /

8/5/26 14:57:31

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Senator Akilah Weber Pierson, Chair

BILL NO: AB 1199

SUBJECT: Medical staff: health care provider credentialing

SUMMARY:

Requires the medical staff of hospitals to be reappointed every three years, rather than every two years, and prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring hospitals to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, within the Medical Practice Act, corporations and other artificial legal entities from having any professional rights, privileges, or powers. However, permits the Medical Board of California, in its discretion, to grant approval of the employment of physicians on a salary basis by licensed charitable institutions, foundation, or clinics, if no charge for professional services rendered to patients is made by any such institution, foundation, or clinic. This is known as the ban on the corporate practice of medicine (CPM) Establishes certain exemptions from the CPM, including certain clinics, university medical schools, and county hospitals. [BPC §2400 and §2401]
2. Requires the board of directors of a hospital to establish rules that provide for the organization of a medical staff with appropriate officers and bylaws, and with staff appointments on an annual or biennial basis. Requires membership on the medical staff to be restricted to physicians and other license practitioners competent in their respective fields and worthy in professional ethics. Requires the medical staff to be self-governing with respect to the professional work performed in the hospital, and to meet periodically and review and analyze at regular intervals their clinical experience, and requires the medical records of patients to be the basis for such review and analysis. [BPC §2282]
3. Requires the medical staff’s right of self-governance to include establishing criteria for medical staff membership and privileges, and enforcing those criteria; establishing clinical criteria and standards to oversee and manage quality assurance, utilization review, and other medical staff activities; selecting and removing medical staff officers; and, initiating, developing, and adopting medical staff bylaws, rules, and regulations, subject to approval of the hospital governing board, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. [BPC §2282.5]

Existing regulations:

1. Defines the governing body of a hospital as the person, persons, board of trustees, directors, or other body in whom the final authority and responsibility is vested for the conduct of the hospital. [22 CCR §70035]
2. Requires the governing body of a hospital to adopt written bylaws in accordance with legal requirements and its community responsibility, which are required to include, among other provisions, the following:
   1. Identification of the purposes of the hospital and the means of fulfilling them;
   2. Appointment and reappointment of members of the medical staff;
   3. Formal organization of the medical staff with appropriate officers and bylaws; and,
   4. Self-government by the medical staff with respect to the professional work performed in the hospital. [22 CCR §70701(a)(1)]
3. Requires each hospital to have an organized medical staff responsible to the governing body for the adequacy and quality of the care rendered to patients, composed of physicians and, where dental or podiatric services are provided, dentists or podiatrists. [22 CCR §70703(a)]
4. Requires the medical staff, by a vote of the members and with the approval of the governing body, to adopt written by-laws which provide formal procedures for the evaluation of staff applications and credentials, appointments, reappointments, assignment of clinical privileges, appeals mechanisms, and such other subjects or conditions which the medical staff and governing body deem appropriate. [22 CCR §70703(b)]
5. Requires medical staff by-laws, rules, and regulations to include provision for the performance of certain functions, including the following: executive review, credentialing, medical records, tissue review, utilization review, infection control, and pharmacy and therapeutics. [22 CCR §70703(d)]

This bill:

1. Requires the medical staff of a hospital to be reappointed at least every three years, rather than on an annual or biennial basis, and also extends a requirement that physicians demonstrate their ability to perform surgical and other procedures competently from every two years to every three years.
2. Prohibits the California Department of Public Health from requiring a hospital to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years, consistent with the above changes.

FISCAL EFFECT:

This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Business, Professions and Economic 10 - 0

Development Committee:

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s statement. According to the author, California’s recredentialing deadlines are out of step with federal standards and industry practices. This leads to medical professionals being bogged down with administrative procedure instead of saving lives and healing people. This bill corrects this issue. Adjusting the recredentialing cycles to three years, instead of the current two years, will improve efficiency while maintaining the safeguards necessary for the medical field.
2. Background. The author points to a number of organizations that do accreditations on a three year cycle, including the Joint Commission, Acute Care Hospital Accreditation, and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care. Additionally, the author points to the 36-month reaccreditation cycle for providers and suppliers accredited by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or CMS-approved accrediting organizations. Specifically regarding medical staffs at hospitals, the author cites information from National Association Medical Staff Services (NAMSS), which includes more than 6,000 medical staff and credentialing services professionals from medical group practices, hospitals, managed care organizations and credentials verification organizations. According to their website, “NAMSS supports revising regulatory and accreditation policies to extend the reappointment cycle for licensed independent practitioners from two years to three years.” According to NAMSS, a three-year reappointment cycle would align with health plans’ re-credentialing schedules and enable medical services professionals to more effectively perform ongoing professional practice evaluation on credentialed and privileged practitioners. A three-year reappointment would reduce the burdens that overlapping evaluations have on practitioners, the costs health systems incur from practitioner evaluations, and the amount of time medical services professionals spend performing redundant administrative tasks.
3. Double referral. This bill was heard in the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee on June 22, 2026, and passed with a 10-0 vote.
4. Prior legislation. SB 642 (Kamlager of 2021) would have prohibited a health facility from requiring a physician, as a condition of obtaining clinical privileges, to agree to comply with policies that are not ratified by the medical staff, that directly or indirectly restrict the ability of the physician to provide a particular medical treatment, or from requiring a physician to obtain permission from a nonphysician to perform a medical treatment for which consent has been obtained from the patient, with certain exceptions. SB 642 was held on the Senate Appropriations Committee suspense file.
5. Support. The California Hospital Association and the California Medical Association support this bill, stating that it is a common-sense update that would align California with current federal and national accreditation standards. This bill would not weaken patient protections, as hospitals continuously monitor practitioner performance through ongoing professional practice evaluations, peer review, quality improvement activities, and focused reviews whenever concerns arise. The Physician Association of California states in support that independent physicians oftentimes lack large administrative teams, meaning they face significant costs and lose invaluable direct patient care time when faced with redundant and unnecessary administrative burdens. This bill allows physicians to spend less time on repetitive paperwork and more time on patient care.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support: California Hospital Association
California Medical Association
Physician Association of California

Oppose: None received

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Senator Dr. Aisha Wahab, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: Hearing Date: June 22, 2026

Subject:

SUMMARY:

Authorizes hospitals to conduct medical staff reappointments and related competency reviews at least every three years rather than every two years.

NOTE: This bill is double-referred to the Senate Committee on Health, second.

Existing law:

1. Enacts the Medical Practice Act, which provides for the licensure and regulation of physicians and surgeons. (BPC §§ 2000 et seq.)
2. Establishes the Medical Board of California (MBC) responsible for administering and enforcing the Medical Practice Act. (BPC § 2001)
3. Establishes the OMBC, which regulates osteopathic physicians and surgeons under the Osteopathic Act who possess effectively the same practice privileges and prescription authority as those regulated by MBC but with a training emphasis on diagnosis and treatment of patients through an integrated, whole-person approach. (BPC §§ 2450 et seq.)
4. Provides that references to the MBC or the term "board" refer to the OMBC where that board exercises the functions granted to it by the Osteopathic Act. (BPC § 2451)
5. Provides that the regular practice of medicine in a licensed general or specialized hospital with five or more physicians on the medical staff constitutes unprofessional conduct unless the hospital has adopted rules governing the operation of the hospital that, among other requirements, provide for a self-governing medical staff, periodic review of clinical experience and patient records, and the appointment of medical staff members. Provides that appointments to the medical staff shall be made by the hospital governing board and, except for initial appointments, shall be made for a period of not more than two years. (Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 2282.)
6. Provides that physicians and surgeons licensed by OMBC are to be accorded equal professional status and privileges as physicians licensed by MBC. Requires hospitals that grant staff privileges to osteopathic physicians and surgeons to provide for appointments to the medical staff by the governing board and, except for initial appointments, limits those appointments to a period not exceeding two years. (BPC § 2453.)
7. Authorizes licensed general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals to provide health care services outside the traditional hospital building in alternative settings, subject to approval and oversight by the California Department of Public Health (CDPH). Requires that services provided in these alternative settings remain under the responsibility of the hospital's governing body and medical staff and be subject to applicable licensing, quality, and patient safety requirements. (Health and Safety Code § 1275.6)

This bill:

1. Authorizes hospitals to conduct medical staff reappointments and related competency reviews at least every three years rather than every two years.
2. Requires the governing body of a general acute care hospital and an acute psychiatric hospital to require that the medical staff establish controls that are designed to ensure the achievement and maintenance of high standards of professional ethical practices, including the provision that all members of the medical staff be required to demonstrate their ability to perform surgical or other procedures competently and to the satisfaction of an appropriate medical staff committee or committees, at the time of original application for appointment to the medical staff and every three years thereafter. Prohibits CDPH from requiring a general acute care hospital or an acute psychiatric hospital to undertake routine reappointments more frequently than every three years.

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown. This bill has not been analyzed by a fiscal committee of the Legislature.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The Author is the sponsor of this bill. According to the Author, “California’s recredentialing deadlines are out of step with federal standards and industry practices. This leads to medical professionals being bogged down with administrative procedure instead of saving lives and healing people. AB 1199 corrects this issue. Adjusting the recredentialing cycles to 3 years, instead of the current 2 years, will improve efficiency while maintaining the safeguards necessary for the medical field.”
2. Background. According to the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the accreditation period for most health care providers and suppliers participating in Medicare is 36 months. CMS recognizes several national accrediting organizations whose accreditation programs are deemed to meet or exceed applicable Medicare requirements, and many of these organizations operate on a three-year accreditation cycle. This framework has become a common model for periodic review and oversight of health care facilities and services participating in federal health care programs.

One of the nation’s largest health care accrediting organizations, The Joint Commission, accredits and certifies more than 22,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. In 2022, The Joint Commission revised its hospital accreditation standards to permit practitioner reappointment and reprivileging at intervals not to exceed three years, replacing its previous two-year maximum cycle. The organization stated that the change was intended to reduce administrative burden while preserving hospitals' responsibility to continuously evaluate practitioner competence, professional performance, and clinical privileges through ongoing review processes. Other nationally recognized accrediting organizations, including DNV Healthcare USA and the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care (AAAHC), generally conduct facility accreditation reviews on three-year cycles recognized by CMS.

California's statutory framework governing hospital medical staff appointments predates these more recent accreditation changes. Under BPC sections 2282 and 2453, appointments to a hospital’s medical staff by the governing board, other than initial appointments, may not exceed two years in duration. Historically, hospitals have used these periodic reappointment reviews to evaluate a practitioner’s licensure, training, competence, professional conduct, and clinical privileges. In addition to formal reappointment cycles, hospitals are generally required through accreditation standards, peer review programs, quality assurance activities, and medical staff bylaws to continuously monitor practitioner performance and patient safety throughout the appointment period.

Supporters of conforming California law to current accreditation standards argue that extending the maximum interval between formal reappointments would align state law with prevailing national practices and reduce administrative burden on hospitals and medical staff offices. They further note that hospitals would remain responsible for ongoing oversight activities, including peer review, professional practice evaluation, licensure verification, quality monitoring, and corrective action when warranted. As a result, proponents contend that extending the interval between formal reappointments may streamline administrative processes while preserving existing patient safety safeguards and quality assurance mechanisms.

SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION:

Support:

None received

Opposition:

None received

-- END --

Date of Hearing: May 21, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1199

Author:(Patterson) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a general acute care hospital (GACH) and an acute psychiatric hospital (APH) develop and implement a policy that requires all employees who have patient contact to wear, while on duty, an identification tag that includes, in 18-point type or larger, the employee’s vocational classification, and one of the following employee identifiers: (1) first and last name, (2) first name and last initial, (3) first initial and last name, (4) last name only, or (5) first name only. The bill also allows a hospital to make an exception from the identification tag requirement for purposes of employee safety.

FISCAL EFFECT:

The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) estimates minor and absorbable costs related to complaint investigations and verifying hospital policies during hospital surveys CDPH already conducts. CDPH does not anticipate enough complaints to require additional staffing because name tags for healthcare practitioners are already common practice and required in accordance with statutes and regulations.

The Department of State Hospitals (DSH) indicates it would incur General Fund costs to provide new name tags to more than 12,000 employees involved in clinical care, and additional non-clinical employees with patient contact, because its current name tags have a 16-point type, rather than the 18-point type required by this bill. DSH costs to implement this bill are likely not sufficient to meet this committee’s suspense threshold.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author: “By limiting the information on hospital name tags at acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric, we protect the safety and privacy of hospital employees, ensuring a secure environment where care is the focus, not personal exposure.”
2. Support. The California Hospital Association (CHA), sponsor of this bill, states hospital employees are facing increasing threats, harassment, and even violence from patients and visitors. CHA notes that although hospital employees are generally required to wear name tags while on duty, current law acknowledges this requirement’s potential risks by allowing an exception in psychiatric settings. Unfortunately, CHA argues, threatening behavior is not limited solely to those units—aggressive individuals can also be encountered in emergency rooms, general medical wards, and outpatient settings. CHA contends that, while it is important for patients to know who is caring for them, it is equally critical to protect the well-being and security of California’s health care workforce. CHA asserts this bill would ensure that patient care is not compromised while giving hospitals the flexibility to protect employees when necessary, thus providing an important and necessary step toward ensuring the safety of hospital employees.
3. Opposition. The Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) opposes this bill, stating that treating patients in the DSH is dangerous work and UAPD psychiatrists face harassment, assault, and worse daily in the course of their professional career. UAPD argues DSH psychiatrists’ personal identifying information (PII) must be closely guarded at all times to protect their safety, and this bill will expose UAPD members’ PII and subject UAPD physicians to undue dangers in the scope of their professional life, and may also expose them and their families to unnecessary risk.

Analysis Prepared by: Allegra Kim / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 29, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mia Bonta, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1199

Author:(Patterson) – As Amended Ver:March 17, 2025

SUBJECT: Hospitals: employee identification.

SUMMARY: Requires a hospital, as defined, to develop and implement a policy that requires all employees who have patient contact to wear an identification tag while on duty, with specified information, that may or may not include the employees first and last name. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a hospital to develop and implement a policy that requires all employees who have patient contact to wear an identification tag while on duty.
2. Defines, for purposes of this bill, “hospital” to mean a general acute care hospital (GACH), as defined, and an acute psychiatric hospital (APH), as defined.
3. Requires the name badge to include, in 18-point type or larger, the employee’s vocational classification or California license status, and one of the following:
   1. The employee’s first and last name;
   2. The employee’s first name and last initial;
   3. The employee’s first initial and last name; or,
   4. The employee’s first name or last name only.
4. Authorizes the hospital to make an exception from the identification tag requirement for purposes of employee safety.
5. Makes findings and declarations as follows:
   1. Existing professional licensing law requires health care practitioners to disclose their name and California license status on a name tag, with specified exceptions. One such exception applies to practitioners working in psychiatric settings, where safety concerns may warrant the absence of a name tag to protect staff from potential harm;
   2. Existing hospital licensing regulations require hospitals to implement a policy that requires all employees having patient contact to wear an identification tag while on duty. There are no exceptions to this requirement. The regulation does not specify whether the employee’s full first and last name must be printed on the name tag;
   3. To maintain the safety and privacy of hospital employees while maintaining workplace security and professional identification standards, the Legislature finds it necessary to align hospital licensing regulations with health care practitioner licensing statutes by allowing hospitals to implement policies that protect employee identity through clarified identification tag requirements; and,
   4. It is the intent of the Legislature to align hospital licensing regulations with health care practitioner licensing statutes by allowing hospitals to implement policies that protect employee identity through clarified identification tag requirements.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Licenses and regulates hospitals, including GACHs and APHs, by the Department of Public Health (DPH). Permits GACHs, in addition to the basic services all hospitals are required to offer, to be approved by DPH to offer special services, including, among other services, psychiatric services. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 1250 (a) and (b)]
2. Requires, except as otherwise provided, a health care practitioner to disclose, while working, his or her name and practitioner’s license status, on a name tag in at least 18-point type. Authorizes a health care practitioner in a practice or an office, whose license is prominently displayed, to opt to not wear a name tag. [Business and Professions Code (BPC) § 680 et seq.]
3. Grants an employer, if a health care practitioner or a licensed clinical social worker is working in a psychiatric setting or in a setting that is not licensed by the state, to have the discretion to make an exception from the name tag requirement for individual safety or therapeutic concerns. Makes it unlawful, in the interest of public safety and consumer awareness, for any person to use the title “nurse” in reference to himself or herself and in any capacity, except for an individual who is a registered nurse or a licensed vocational nurse. [Ibid.]
4. Defines for purposes of the provisions of existing law above, “health care practitioner” to mean any person who engages in acts that are the subject of licensure or regulation under specified BPC. [Ibid.]
5. Requires hospitals to conduct a security and safety assessment (annually reviewed and updated) and, using the assessment, develop a security plan with measures to protect personnel, patients, and visitors from aggressive or violent behavior. The plan must include specified security considerations. The plan may include security considerations relating to efforts to cooperate with local law enforcement regarding violent acts in the facility and requires the hospital to consult with affected employees, including the recognized collective bargaining agent or agents, if any, and members of the medical staff. [HSC § 1257.7]
6. Establishes the Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) within the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) to, among other things, propose, administer, and enforce occupational safety and health standards. [Labor Code (LAB) § 6300 et seq.]
7. Establishes the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (Cal/OSHA Standards Board), within DIR, to promote, adopt, and maintain reasonable and enforceable standards that will ensure a safe and healthful workplace for workers. [LAB § 140 et seq.]
8. Requires employers to establish, implement and maintain an Injury and Illness Prevention Program that must include, among other things, a system for identifying and evaluating workplace hazards, including a workplace violence prevention plan. [LAB § 6401.7]
9. Requires every employer to file a complete report with Cal/OSHA of every occupational injury or occupational illness to each employee which results in lost time beyond the date of the injury or illness, or which requires medical treatment beyond first aid. A report must be filed within five days after the employer obtains knowledge of the injury or illness. In addition to this report, in every case involving a serious injury or illness, or death, the employer is required to make an immediate report to Cal/OSHA by telephone or email. Failure to file this report as required deems an employer guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in a county jail and/or a $5,000 fine. [LAB § 6409.1]
10. Requires the Cal/OSHA Standards Board to adopt standards that require a licensed GACH, APH, or special hospital to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan to protect health care workers and other facility personnel from aggressive and violent behavior. Requires these workplace violence plans to include, among other requirements, a system to assess and improve upon factors that may contribute to, or help prevent workplace violence, including sufficiency of security systems, including alarms, emergency response, and security personnel availability. [LAB § 6401.8]

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill has not yet been analyzed by a fiscal committee.

COMMENTS:

1. PURPOSE OF THIS BILL. According to the author, by limiting the information on hospital name tags at acute care GACHs and APHs, we protect the safety and privacy of hospital employees, ensuring a secure environment where care is the focus, not personal exposure.
2. BACKGROUND.
   1. Workplace Violence in Hospitals. According to an umbrella review of meta-analyses published in Frontiers in Public Health in 2022, healthcare workers are at high risk for workplace violence exposure, with studies reporting that 50% to 88% of health care workers have been exposed to workplace violence. The rates can be higher depending on the type and setting of the health care environment, with up to 90% of emergency medicine health care workers reporting some degree of workplace violence. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, health care workers accounted for 73% of all nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses due to violence in 2018. A study that looked at the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on workplace violence in California’s hospitals, comparing the number of violent incidents in the period before the pandemic to the period following California’s shutdown, found that despite major reductions in patient volume, workplace violence incidents remained essentially unchanged. Workplace violence is constantly on the rise in the health care industry due to workloads, demanding work pressures, excessive work stress, deteriorating interpersonal relationships, social uncertainty, and economic restraints. Most violent cases are committed by patients’ family members or friends, followed by patients themselves. The most vulnerable health care workers victimized are staff at emergency departments, especially nurses and paramedics, and staff directly involved with inpatient care.
   2. Cal/OSHA. Cal/OSHA developed a regulation for certain hospitals to adopt a workplace violence prevention plan following passage of Senate Bill 1299 (Padilla) Chapter 842, Statutes of 2014 addressing workplace violence in health care. Cal/OSHA’s Violence Prevention in Heath Care standard (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 3342) became effective on April 1, 2017. Current law also requires that Cal/OSHA post a report on its website each year containing information on violent incidents at hospitals, based on reports submitted by the hospitals. Cal/OSHA’s report must include which hospitals submitted reports, the total number of incidents reported, the outcome of any related inspection or investigation, citations levied against a hospital based on a violent incident, and recommendations for the prevention of violent incidents in hospitals. Hospitals must submit reports to Cal/OSHA regarding any incident involving either of the following: (A) The use of physical force against an employee by a patient or a person accompanying a patient that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, injury, psychological trauma, or stress, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury; and, (B) An incident involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, regardless of whether the employee sustains an injury. For reporting purposes, the definition of “injury” is any injury that results in loss of consciousness, medical treatment beyond first aid, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional, or death.

The March 22, 2024 report contains data from October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022. Cal/OSHA received 10,280 violent incident reports from 301 hospital facilities during the reporting period. This number does not include reports that were duplicative,

erroneous, or replaced by a corrected report. Five Department of State Hospitals (DSH) facilities reported incidents using an alternative reporting method, while 296 facilities reported incidents using the Cal/OSHA online reporting system. Starting October 1, 2022, DSH began using the same online reporting system as all other hospitals and their incidents will be included in next year’s report. Each violent incident report contains the following information:

• • • 1. Name and address of the hospital where the incident occurred;
      2. Date, time, and location of the incident;
      3. Brief description of the incident;
      4. Number of employees injured (if any) and the types of injuries;
      5. Whether security or law enforcement was contacted;
      6. Whether there is a continuing threat, and if so, what measures are being taken to protect employees; and,
      7. Whether the incident was reported to the nearest Cal/OSHA district office as required.

According to the California Hospital Association, the sponsor of this bill, while this data doesn’t tie to I.D. badges (so it is hard to say how many could have been prevented by being able to remove or hide an I.D. badge), if the ability to do so reduces workplace violence by just 5%, then this would mean over 500 fewer violent episodes against employees in hospitals annually.

1. SUPPORT. The California Hospital Association (CHA) supports this bill and states that hospital employees are facing increasing threats, harassment, and even violence from patients and visitors. CHA notes that although hospital employees are generally required to wear name tags while on duty, current law acknowledges this requirement’s potential risks by allowing an exception in psychiatric settings. Unfortunately, threatening behavior is not limited solely to those units — aggressive individuals can also be encountered in emergency rooms, general medical wards, and outpatient settings. CHA contends that, while it is important for patients to know who is caring for them, it is equally critical to protect the well-being and security of California’s health care workforce. CHA argues that this bill would ensure that patient care is not compromised while giving hospitals the flexibility to protect employees when necessary, thus providing an important and necessary step toward ensuring the safety of hospital employees.
2. OPPOSITION. The Union of American Physicians and Dentists (UAPD) is opposed to this bill and states that treating patients in the Department of State Hospitals is dangerous work. UAPD Psychiatrists face harassment, assault and worse daily in the course of their professional career. Their personal identifying information (PII) must be closely guarded at all times to protect their safety. UAPD contends that if this bill is passed it will expose UAPD member PII and subject UAPD physicians to undue dangers both in the scope of their professional life and may also expose them and their families outside of the institution to unnecessary risk.
3. PREVIOUS LEGISLATION. AB 2975 (Gipson) Chapter 749, Statutes of 2024 requires the Cal/OSHA Board, by March 1, 2027, to amend the workplace violence prevention in health care standards to require certain licensed hospitals to implement a weapons detection screening policy that requires the use of weapons detection devices that automatically screen a person's body at specified entrances, and adopt related policies, staffing and signage, as specified.
4. AMENDMENTS. As currently drafted this bill provides a broad exemption, solely at the discretion of the hospital, to allow to make an exception from the identification tag requirement for purposes of employee safety. The Committee may wish to amend this bill to remove that exemption to ensure identification requirements are more consistently applied.
5. POLICY COMMENT. In order to better assess the danger to health care workers that directly results from wearing a name tag, the author may wish to consider amending this bill to require Cal/OSHA to collect data specific to injuries related to name tags.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Hospital Association

Opposition

Union of American Physicians and Dentists

Analysis Prepared by: Lara Flynn / HEALTH / (916) 319-2097