Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prior‑authorization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee shortens prior authorization timeframes in AB 512 to speed urgent and nonurgent care
Summary
AB 512 would shorten insurer response times for prior authorization requests — from 72 to 24 hours for electronically submitted urgent requests, and from 5 business days to 3 business days for electronic nonurgent requests — while promoting electronic submission; the committee advanced the measure with amendments and extensive stakeholder talks.
AB 512, the Timely Access to Care Act, would tighten timeframes for insurer prior authorization decisions and push toward electronic submission. The Senate Health Committee advanced the bill after broad testimony from physicians, hospitals and specialty societies supporting faster response times and industry groups urging required electronic submission and clinically complete requests.
The bill would reduce the processing time for urgent prior authorization requests from 72 hours to 24 hours when submitted electronically and 48 hours when submitted non‑electronically; nonurgent electronic requests would move from a 5‑business‑day response window to 3 business days (the 5‑day window would remain for non‑electronic submissions). Supporters told the committee that prior authorization delays cause care postponement, increased hospital stays, administrative burden and physician burnout.
Dr. Rabinder Gill, a hospitalist at UC Davis, described delayed discharges attributed to prolonged prior authorization reviews, including a case where a patient’s discharge was delayed more than a week while awaiting insurer response. The California Medical Association, numerous physician groups, hospital associations and nursing and patient‑advocacy organizations supported the bill.
Industry groups — including the California Association of Health Plans, the Association of California Life and Health Insurance Companies, Local Health Plans of California and others — said they were “oppose unless amended,” urging that the bill require electronic submission and that requests be clinically complete before the accelerated timelines apply. They proposed phased implementation and technical changes to reduce operational disruption. Insurer witnesses also emphasized the role of utilization management to ensure medical necessity and guard against waste.
Committee members discussed the need to pair faster timelines with technical infrastructure improvements; the author accepted committee amendments that create a bifurcated system and encourage electronic submission while recognizing rural and small‑clinic constraints.
Votes at a glance: AB 512 advanced from the committee as amended and was referred to appropriations.
