AB1970 forbids health care service plans and health insurers from imposing step therapy as a condition of coverage for any prescription drug used to treat mental health or substance use disorders for contracts and policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. The bill cross-references existing statutory definitions for both “step therapy” and the covered conditions, and carves out limited exceptions.
The prohibition applies to state-regulated commercial plans and insurer policies but treats Medi‑Cal managed care differently: it only reaches those contracts to the extent federal approvals and federal financial participation are in place and not jeopardized. The bill also exempts circumstances where an FDA-labeled indication requires prior medication and excludes dental-only, vision-only, Medicare supplement, and certain nonhealth disability coverages.
By constraining a common utilization-management tool for behavioral-health drugs, the measure shifts clinical and cost-management dynamics for payers, providers, and beneficiaries.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars step therapy as a prior condition for covering prescription drugs used to treat mental health or substance use disorders for plans and policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. It preserves an exception when FDA-labeled indications require prior medication.
Who It Affects
California-regulated health care service plans and health insurers (commercial lines), clinicians who prescribe behavioral-health medications, patients with mental-health or substance use disorders, and Medi‑Cal managed care contracts subject to federal approval.
Why It Matters
Step therapy is a widely used cost-control mechanism; removing it for behavioral-health drugs can speed access to prescribed medications but also alters utilization management, formulary negotiation, and plan cost exposure. Compliance officers, pharmacy directors, and behavioral-health providers should reassess prior-authorization and drug-management workflows.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates parallel prohibitions in the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code that prevent state-regulated health plans and insurers from using step therapy to delay or deny coverage of prescription medications prescribed for mental health or substance use disorders. It targets contracts and policies that are issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, so existing contracts in force before that date are not automatically changed until they are next rewritten or renewed.
Step therapy is not redefined in the bill; instead, the measure points to the statutory definition already contained in the Insurance Code, ensuring a uniform meaning across the two statutes. For behavioral-health drugs whose FDA-labeled indications explicitly require a prior medication, the ban on step therapy does not apply — in other words, the bill preserves FDA-directed sequencing where present.
The law also lists routine exclusions: dental-only and vision-only plans, Medicare supplement policies, and certain nonhealth disability contracts are not subject to the prohibition.Medi‑Cal managed care is treated conditionally. The prohibition will apply to Medi‑Cal managed care plan contracts only if the Department of Health Care Services secures whatever federal waivers or approvals are necessary and federal financial participation is available and not jeopardized.
The statute clarifies it does not expand a plan’s obligation to cover drugs beyond what existing Medi‑Cal contracts or federal rules already require.Although the new provisions do not themselves set a new monetary penalty schedule, the bill’s legislative filing notes that, because the Knox‑Keene Act already makes willful violations a crime, enforcement against health care service plans could carry criminal consequences under existing law. The measure also contains the standard state constitutional reimbursement clause, stating that no reimbursement is required because the financial impacts on local agencies stem from creating or changing a crime or infraction.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Effective date: the prohibition applies to contracts and policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027.
Scope: the ban covers prescription drugs used to treat mental health or substance use disorders as defined in the referenced statutory sections, and it applies to state-regulated health care service plans and health insurers.
FDA exception: step therapy remains permissible when an FDA-labeled indication or usage for a drug requires some prior medication.
Medi‑Cal conditionality: the rule applies to Medi‑Cal managed care contracts only if the State obtains necessary federal approvals and federal financial participation is available and not jeopardized.
Excluded lines: the prohibition does not apply to dental-only, vision-only, Medicare supplement, or nonhealth disability insurance policies (and specialized dental/vision plan contracts).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibits step therapy for behavioral-health drugs in health care service plans; Medi‑Cal conditionality and exceptions
This section bars health care service plans from imposing step therapy for any prescription drug used to treat mental health or substance use disorders for contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. It imports the Insurance Code definition of “step therapy,” so plan administrators should expect the existing regulatory meaning and processes to carry over. The section makes clear that the rule reaches Medi‑Cal managed care only to the extent federal approvals and federal funding permit and that the state’s Medi‑Cal contracts still govern coverage obligations. It also excludes specialized dental/vision-only contracts and preserves an FDA-label exception where a drug’s authorized usage requires prior medication.
Parallel prohibition for health insurers with enumerated exclusions
This provision mirrors the Health & Safety Code ban for private health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027. It references the same statutory definition of step therapy and repeats the FDA-labeled indication carve-out. Notably, it explicitly excludes dental-only, vision-only, Medicare supplement, and nonhealth disability insurance policies, so issuers in those product lines do not have to change utilization-management practices in response to the bill.
No state reimbursement required; criminal implication flagged
This standard constitutional clause states the Legislature need not reimburse local agencies because any costs arise from creating or changing a crime or infraction. That language signals the bill’s drafters anticipate enforcement consequences under existing criminal provisions of the Knox‑Keene Act for health care service plans that willfully violate the new prohibitions. Practically, plan compliance units should evaluate both administrative enforcement and the remote prospect of criminal exposure tied to willful noncompliance under California law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Patients with mental-health conditions and substance use disorders — they gain faster access to the specific medications their clinicians prescribe without being forced through lower‑tier drugs first.
- Behavioral-health clinicians and prescribers — reduced administrative friction from step protocols can streamline prescribing and treatment continuity.
- Mental-health provider organizations and clinics — fewer treatment interruptions from step therapy denials can improve care retention and outcomes.
- Advocacy organizations focused on SUD and mental health — the policy strengthens arguments for clinical‑first decision‑making and reduces an insurer barrier frequently cited by stakeholders.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health care service plans and health insurers regulated by California — they will lose a common utilization-management lever and may face higher short‑term drug costs or need to redesign management tools.
- Pharmacy directors and formulary committees — they must revise protocols, appeals workflows, and utilization-management rules to comply with the ban and the FDA exception.
- State Department of Health Care Services and Medi‑Cal program administrators — they must pursue any required federal approvals and reconcile the policy with existing Medi‑Cal benefit and contract rules, which could impose administrative burdens.
- Employers offering self‑funded (ERISA) plans — while state law likely does not reach ERISA plans directly, employers and benefits teams may face indirect pressure or competitive dynamics as insured plans adapt formularies.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between faster, clinician‑directed access to behavioral‑health medications and the state’s interest in allowing payers to use evidence‑based utilization controls to manage costs and safety; restricting step therapy reduces one barrier to access but shifts financial and operational pressures onto payers, regulators, and potentially other forms of utilization management.
The bill eliminates a specific utilization-management tool (step therapy) for behavioral-health drugs but leaves other cost‑control mechanisms intact, which raises implementation questions. Plans may respond by tightening prior-authorization criteria, narrowing formularies, increasing utilization review scrutiny, or shifting costs to patients in other ways (higher copay tiers or specialty carve-outs).
The text’s reliance on existing statutory definitions means administrative guidance will be needed to resolve edge cases — for example, whether off‑label prescribing, multi-indication drugs, or drugs primarily used for physical-health conditions but occasionally prescribed for SUD are covered under the prohibition.
Two parallel legal frictions merit attention. First, the Medi‑Cal carve-out makes application contingent on federal approvals and federal financial participation; pursuing waivers can be time-consuming and may result in staggered application across beneficiary groups.
Second, the bill’s effect on employer self‑insured ERISA plans is uncertain: longstanding federal preemption likely leaves those plans outside the state’s reach, creating a two‑tier market where insured individuals gain protections uninsured beneficiaries do not. Finally, the reimbursement clause’s reference to criminal consequences is meaningful: although criminal enforcement for willful violations is not spelled out in the new sections themselves, reliance on the Knox‑Keene framework creates a higher‑stakes compliance environment for plan executives and compliance officers than a purely civil regime would.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.