Bill Commons

CA AB 512

vetoed

Health care coverage: prior authorization.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Quick answers

Did CA AB 512 pass?

No. CA AB 512 passed the legislature but was vetoed on 2026-01-22. Latest recorded action (2026-01-22): Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

What is CA AB 512 about?

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of disability insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including pursuant to contracts with various types of managed care plans. Existing law generally authorizes a health care service plan, including a Medi-Cal managed care plan, or disability insurer to use utilization review, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. For a request prior to or concurrent with the provision of health care services, existing law requires utilization review decisions to be made within 5 business days from the plan's or insurer's receipt of the information reasonably necessary and requested by the plan or insurer to make the determination, or within 72 hours if the enrollee or insured faces an imminent and serious threat to their health or the normal timeframe would be detrimental to their life or health, as specified. This bill would change the timeline for prior or concurrent authorization requests to no more than 3 business days from the plan's or insurer's receipt via electronic submission, or 5 business days from receipt via submission that is not electronic, of the information reasonably necessary and requested by the plan or insurer to make the determination. The bill would require a utilization review decision to be made within 24 hours from receipt of a prior or concurrent authorization request via electronic submission, or 48 hours from receipt via submission that is not electronic, if the enrollee or insured faces an imminent and serious threat to their health or the normal timeframe would be detrimental to their life or health. Because a willful violation of this provision by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude Medi-Cal managed care plans from the above-described timeline changes. 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.

Who sponsors CA AB 512?

Harabedian is the primary sponsor of CA AB 512, joined by 1 cosponsor.

Description

Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of disability insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law provides for the Medi-Cal program, administered by the State Department of Health Care Services and under which qualified low-income individuals receive health care services, including pursuant to contracts with various types of managed care plans. Existing law generally authorizes a health care service plan, including a Medi-Cal managed care plan, or disability insurer to use utilization review, under which a licensed physician or a licensed health care professional who is competent to evaluate specific clinical issues may approve, modify, delay, or deny requests for health care services based on medical necessity. For a request prior to or concurrent with the provision of health care services, existing law requires utilization review decisions to be made within 5 business days from the plan's or insurer's receipt of the information reasonably necessary and requested by the plan or insurer to make the determination, or within 72 hours if the enrollee or insured faces an imminent and serious threat to their health or the normal timeframe would be detrimental to their life or health, as specified. This bill would change the timeline for prior or concurrent authorization requests to no more than 3 business days from the plan's or insurer's receipt via electronic submission, or 5 business days from receipt via submission that is not electronic, of the information reasonably necessary and requested by the plan or insurer to make the determination. The bill would require a utilization review decision to be made within 24 hours from receipt of a prior or concurrent authorization request via electronic submission, or 48 hours from receipt via submission that is not electronic, if the enrollee or insured faces an imminent and serious threat to their health or the normal timeframe would be detrimental to their life or health. Because a willful violation of this provision by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would exclude Medi-Cal managed care plans from the above-described timeline changes. 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.

Introduced
2025-04-11
Latest action
2026-01-22 — Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.
Bill type
bill
Last updated

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Harabedianauthor
  • Patelcoauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-02-10

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

  2. 2025-02-11

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 13.

  3. 2025-02-24

    Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

    referral-committee

  4. 2025-04-11

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on HEALTH. Read second time and amended.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  5. 2025-04-21

    Re-referred to Com. on HEALTH.

    referral-committee

  6. 2025-04-24

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 22).

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-28

    Read second time and amended.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  8. 2025-04-29

    Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    referral-committee

  9. 2025-05-14

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  10. 2025-05-23

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (May 23).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  11. 2025-05-27

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  12. 2025-06-02

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 1. Page 1834.)

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  13. 2025-06-03

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

    reading-1,referral-committee

  14. 2025-06-11

    Referred to Com. on HEALTH.

    referral-committee

  15. 2025-07-10

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 9).

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee

  16. 2025-07-14

    Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  17. 2025-08-18

    In committee: Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  18. 2025-08-29

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (August 29).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  19. 2025-08-29

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  20. 2025-09-04

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  21. 2025-09-05

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  22. 2025-09-08

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  23. 2025-09-09

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 30. Noes 0. Page 2656.).

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  24. 2025-09-09

    In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  25. 2025-09-10

    Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 67. Noes 2. Page 3219.).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  26. 2025-09-22

    Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

    executive-receipt

  27. 2025-10-06

    Vetoed by Governor.

    executive-veto

  28. 2025-10-06

    Consideration of Governor's veto pending.

  29. 2026-01-22

    Consideration of Governor's veto stricken from file.

    veto-override-failure

Versions

  • 02/10/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-10Compare
  • 04/11/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-11Compare
  • 04/28/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-28Compare
  • 07/14/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-07-14Compare
  • 09/04/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-09-04Compare
  • 09/05/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-09-05Compare
  • 09/12/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-12Compare
  • AB512Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-04-22 · pass · 13-0

    Member-level votes (16)
    • Patel: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Addis: yes
    • Chen: other
    • Flora: other
    • Patterson: other
  • Do pass.

    2025-05-23 · pass · 12-0

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Calderon: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Ta: other
    • Sanchez: other
    • Tangipa: other
  • AB 512 Harabedian Assembly Third Reading

    2025-06-02 · pass · 68-1

    Member-level votes (79)
    • Addis: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Gallagher: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Jeff Gonzalez: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Dixon: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Soria: yes
    • Wallis: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Hoover: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Bains: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • DeMaio: no
    • Chen: other
    • Lackey: other
    • Ta: other
    • Tangipa: other
    • Ellis: other
    • Flora: other
    • Hadwick: other
    • Macedo: other
    • Castillo: other
    • Patterson: other
  • Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-07-09 · pass · 9-0

    Member-level votes (11)
    • Wiener: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Richardson: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Valladares: other
    • Grove: other
  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Grayson: yes
  • Do pass

    2025-08-29 · pass · 5-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Dahle: other
    • Seyarto: other
  • 3rd Reading AB512 Harabedian et al. By Becker

    2025-09-09 · pass · 30-0

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Hurtado: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Reyes: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Blakespear: yes
    • Niello: other
    • Ochoa Bogh: other
    • Dahle: other
    • Grove: other
    • Jones: other
    • Valladares: other
    • Seyarto: other
    • Strickland: other
    • Choi: other
    • Alvarado-Gil: other
  • AB 512 Harabedian Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    2025-09-11 · pass · 67-2

    Member-level votes (80)
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Addis: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Bains: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Soria: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Arambula: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Jeff Gonzalez: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Alanis: yes
    • Wallis: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Hoover: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Gallagher: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • Davies: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Sanchez: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Ellis: no
    • DeMaio: no
    • Johnson: other
    • Dixon: other
    • Hadwick: other
    • Tangipa: other
    • Lackey: other
    • Chen: other
    • Castillo: other
    • Macedo: other
    • Flora: other
    • Patterson: other
    • Ta: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 512. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.