CA SB 679
deadHealth care facilities: physicians and surgeons: terminations and revocation of staff privileges: data reporting by race and gender.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA SB 679 pass?
No. CA SB 679 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process. Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 679 about?
Existing law establishes a peer review process for certain healing arts licensees and requires peer review bodies to review licensee conduct under specified circumstances. If a licentiate's membership, staff privileges, or employment is terminated or revoked for a medical disciplinary cause or reason, existing law requires the chief executive officer or administrator of a licensed health care facility, among others, to file an "805 report" with the relevant state licensing agency having regulatory jurisdiction over the licentiate. This bill would require a health care facility or peer review body, on or before March 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Civil Rights Department that includes, among other data, the number of physicians and surgeons and medical residents at the health care facility who were terminated, the number of physicians and surgeons who completed an application for staff privileges, were granted staff privileges, or for whom staff privileges were suspended or revoked, and the number of physicians and surgeons or medical residents in those categories, stratified by race and gender. The bill would require the Civil Rights Department, on or before September 1 of each year, to publish the information on the department's internet website, would require the information to be aggregated and deidentified, and would prohibit disclosure of the names of the health care facilities or any personally identifiable information. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
Who sponsors CA SB 679?
Weber Pierson is the primary sponsor of CA SB 679.
Description
Existing law establishes a peer review process for certain healing arts licensees and requires peer review bodies to review licensee conduct under specified circumstances. If a licentiate's membership, staff privileges, or employment is terminated or revoked for a medical disciplinary cause or reason, existing law requires the chief executive officer or administrator of a licensed health care facility, among others, to file an "805 report" with the relevant state licensing agency having regulatory jurisdiction over the licentiate. This bill would require a health care facility or peer review body, on or before March 1 of each year, to submit a report to the Civil Rights Department that includes, among other data, the number of physicians and surgeons and medical residents at the health care facility who were terminated, the number of physicians and surgeons who completed an application for staff privileges, were granted staff privileges, or for whom staff privileges were suspended or revoked, and the number of physicians and surgeons or medical residents in those categories, stratified by race and gender. The bill would require the Civil Rights Department, on or before September 1 of each year, to publish the information on the department's internet website, would require the information to be aggregated and deidentified, and would prohibit disclosure of the names of the health care facilities or any personally identifiable information. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
- Introduced
- 2025-02-21
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Weber Piersonauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
2025-05-23
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2025-05-16
Set for hearing May 23.
2025-05-12
May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-05-02
Set for hearing May 12.
2025-04-30
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0. Page 942.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-22
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-04-21
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 8. Noes 0. Page 809.) (April 21).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-04-08
Set for hearing April 29 in JUD. pending receipt.
2025-04-03
Set for hearing April 21.
2025-04-02
Re-referred to Coms. on B. P. & E.D. and JUD.
referral-committee
2025-03-25
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-05
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2025-02-24
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 24.
2025-02-24
Read first time.
reading-1
2025-02-21
Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,referral-committee
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2025-04-21 · pass · 8-0
Member-level votes (11)
- Arreguín: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Choi: other
- Niello: other
- Strickland: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2025-04-29 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Arreguín: yes
- Allen: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Laird: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Stern: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Niello: other
Placed on suspense file
2025-05-12 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Wahab: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Dahle: yes
- Caballero: yes
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:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
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=SB 679. 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.