Medical Board opposes telehealth expansion as drafted, signals work on AI and discipline bills

The Medical Board of California spent much of its two‑day meeting this week weighing bills that would change licensure, patient access and enforcement. After extended discussion and public testimony, the board voted to oppose SB 1002 as currently written while urging the Legislature to consider narrower changes that would preserve board jurisdiction and patient protections.

The board's opposition centered on SB 1002's proposal to let certain out‑of‑state physicians continue treating California patients via telehealth without obtaining a California license. Board staff and members said the bill "provides no means for the board to vet or discipline those practitioners," leaving harmed Californians with limited recourse. Multiple board members warned that the measure could allow indefinite follow‑up care that erodes consumer protections.

Public commenters were split. Patient advocates urged the board to support greater telehealth access, arguing that specialized out‑of‑state care can be a lifeline for rare diseases. One commenter, Robin Clow, described traveling to MD Anderson for lifesaving treatment and asked the board to permit continued telehealth access when local care is unavailable.

On SB 903, which would limit clinical uses of artificial intelligence in therapy and psychotherapy, the board agreed the topic is important but complicated. Staff highlighted vague definitions and enforcement concerns; board members favored continuing to study the impact of the Illinois model the bill mirrors. Tyler Rind, speaking for the California Psychological Association, urged collaboration on technical fixes so the measure can proceed with clearer language.

On SB 849, a bill that would make automatic license revocation and bar reinstatement for licensees previously revoked for specified misconduct, staff recommended a "support if amended" position to replace the bill's current text with narrower statutory changes. Board members expressed concern about retroactivity, expungements and litigation risk; patient‑safety advocates called for stronger protections. The board approved staff's approach to work with the author on amendments.

Board President Miss Lawson said the decisions reflect "a balance between improving patient access and preserving the board's ability to protect California consumers," and directed staff to continue outreach and bring further analysis to the May meeting.