The Medical Board of California spent a large portion of its Dec. 4 meeting receiving public comment and member questions on AB 408, a board‑sponsored bill to establish a confidential physician health and wellness program.

Proponents, including the California Medical Association and physician‑health advocates, said the bill aims to identify clinicians at risk sooner and connect them to evaluation, treatment and monitoring before patient harm occurs. Lucas Evenson of the California Medical Association told the board that AB 408 “represents a significant step forward in prioritizing both patient safety and physician well‑being,” and noted similar programs operate in other states.

Supporters inside the room and on the phone pointed to national best‑practice guidance and said California currently waits until complaints are filed and disciplinary processes run their course. Board member Dr. Thorpe said the state presently has “no assurance that a doctor … is not an impaired doctor,” calling AB 408 an attempt to provide an off‑ramp for clinicians who want treatment before disciplinary action is necessary.

Opponents, including retired physician Kaye Funk, the Consumer Protection Policy Center (CPPC) at the University of San Diego, and multiple members of Consumers Watchdog, expressed the opposite fear: that the program would allow clinicians who have engaged in unprofessional conduct or who practice while impaired to avoid discipline and public notice. Kaye Funk said the model “has been problematic for Washington physicians” and urged the board’s physician members to demand published diagnostic criteria and transparency from program operators.

Several public speakers described prior experience with a diversion‑style program and argued it failed to produce meaningful public notice or participation. Rebecca Marcus of the CPPC summarized recent committee concerns in the Legislature and argued the board’s materials did not fully reflect the Senate committee’s reservations. Consumer Watchdog’s Michelle Montserrat Ramos urged the board to amend AB 408 so it makes a “clear distinction between doctors who are truly voluntary participants and those who are only in treatment to avoid discipline.”

Board staff and legislative counsel framed AB 408 as part of a multi‑year process: the bill is in the second year of a two‑year legislative cycle and is likely to be amended as it moves forward. Staff noted supporting materials in the board packet, including a letter from the Federation of State Physician Health Programs and references to state programs used as background.

The board did not take a vote on the bill at the meeting. Several board members said they want additional information and possible statutory clarifications; staff said the board will receive updates and may consider amendments in future meetings when the Legislature reconvenes.

The record of public commenters and board discussion suggests AB 408 will remain contested as it moves through the legislative process; members indicated they expect further work on language and implementation details before the board considers formal positions or rules.