Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Care Provider Directories topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee backs bill to tighten accuracy of health-plan provider directories
Summary
The Assembly Health Committee voted to advance AB 280, which would require health plans to meet phased accuracy benchmarks for provider directories and allow use of a centralized verification utility; supporters tied inaccuracy to delayed care and harms for consumers, while insurers warned of limits without provider participation.
The Assembly Health Committee on Tuesday voted to advance AB 280, a bill that would require health plans to verify provider information annually, meet phased accuracy benchmarks and allow use of a centralized third‑party database to reduce errors in provider directories.
Supporters said inaccurate “ghost” listings leave patients unable to find in‑network care and can lead to delayed or costlier treatment. Katie Van Dynes of Health Access California told the committee that some directories show error rates as high as 80 percent for psychiatrists. “Consumers deserve accurate provider directories,” Van Dynes said. Sarah Soekran, a licensed clinical social worker, described a patient who attempted suicide after calling through dozens of in‑network providers with no success.
The bill would give regulators authority to require plan participation in a central utility where providers could update their information once for all participating plans. AB 280 sets enforceable accuracy standards starting at 60 percent by July 1, 2026 and rising to 95 percent by July 1, 2029, and would require plans to arrange care and cover out‑of‑network costs when consumers rely on an inaccurate directory.
Supporters — including Health Access California, the California Behavioral Health Association and other patient‑advocacy groups — argued the measure is needed because prior law (enacted in 2015) has not produced adequate compliance or enforcement. “It should not be on the consumer to call through all these providers to navigate the process on their own,” Van Dynes said.
Insurers and some provider groups said they share the goal of accuracy but warned the bill places too much responsibility on plans without ensuring provider cooperation. Stephanie Watkins of the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies said providers must participate in any centralized system or directories will remain incomplete. Nick Luisos of the California Association of Health Plans said penalties for plan failures could raise costs without addressing root causes such as nonresponsive providers.
Committee members pressed supporters and opponents on the central utility design and vendor liability. Several members said the bill’s phased benchmarks and timeline are a reasonable compromise after a decade of spotty compliance. The author said the bill authorizes regulators to require participating plans and the utility to meet technical standards and to pursue further stakeholder work before final implementation.
The committee voted to advance AB 280 to the appropriations committee. The bill’s supporters acknowledged additional negotiation will be needed on implementation details and safeguards for providers and plans.
Ending note: Committee members and stakeholders indicated they will continue to work on technical fixes and operational questions about the central utility and enforcement framework as the bill proceeds to appropriations.
