AB 2165 amends Section 1368.017 of the Health and Safety Code to revise the statutory language that defines a “behavioral health and wellness screening” and to preserve the existing duty of Knox‑Keene health care service plans to send an annual written or electronic notice about the benefits of such screenings for children and adolescents between 8 and 18 years of age. The bill’s digest describes the change as technical and nonsubstantive.
Practically speaking, the bill does not create a new screening mandate or expand benefits; it clarifies an illustrative list of conditions (depression and anxiety) within the definition and leaves the existing annual notice and the Medi‑Cal managed care exclusion in place. Compliance teams for regulated plans will need to check and, if necessary, update member notices and distribution procedures to match the revised statutory language, but the policy shift is minimal.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill revises the statutory definition of “behavioral health and wellness screening” and reiterates that plans must give enrollees an annual written or electronic notice about screening benefits for children and adolescents ages 8–18. It leaves the preexisting exclusion for Medi‑Cal managed care intact.
Who It Affects
Knox‑Keene–regulated health care service plans (commercial HMOs and similar plans), their compliance and member‑communications teams, and the Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). It does not impose requirements on Medi‑Cal managed care plans that contract with the Department of Health Care Services under the cited Welfare and Institutions Code chapters.
Why It Matters
Although the amendment is chiefly editorial, clarifying statutory language can change how regulators interpret obligations and how plans draft member materials. The change is likely to trigger modest operational updates (notice templates, vendor briefs, translations) and could reduce ambiguity in enforcement or litigation over what counts as a behavioral health screening.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1368.017 already requires Knox‑Keene–regulated plans to provide enrollees with a yearly written or electronic notice about the benefits of behavioral health and wellness screenings for children and adolescents aged 8 to 18. AB 2165 keeps that annual‑notice duty exactly as it stands but revises the short statutory definition of what a “behavioral health and wellness screening” is, so the statute’s example list (depression and anxiety) reads more cleanly.
The bill does not add new screening obligations, funding, or referral requirements. It does not instruct plans how to conduct screenings, what screening tools to use, or when in the benefit year the notice must be distributed; those operational details remain in plan policies and DMHC practice.
The statutory change is therefore most likely to show up as edits to plan form notices, website language, and vendor templates used for member outreach.Because Medi‑Cal managed care that contracts with DHCS under the referenced Welfare and Institutions Code chapters is explicitly excluded, the amendment does not alter communications duties for those Medi‑Cal plans. For non‑Medi‑Cal plans the practical compliance steps are straightforward: review existing notices for wording that mirrors the statute, update template language to match the revised definition, and ensure annual distribution processes remain in place.
DMHC could rely on the cleaner text in any future audits or enforcement actions, which is why plans should treat this as a housekeeping item with compliance visibility.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 1368.017 of the Health and Safety Code and preserves the requirement that plans send an annual written or electronic notice about behavioral health screening benefits.
It clarifies the statutory definition by listing depression and anxiety as illustrative examples of behavioral health conditions within the screening concept rather than codifying a closed list.
The age window subject to the notice remains children and adolescents 8 through 18 years of age; the bill does not change that range.
The statute continues to exempt Medi‑Cal managed care that contracts with the Department of Health Care Services under Chapters 7 and 8 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
The digest labels the change technical and nonsubstantive; the bill adds no funding, timing rules for notices, enforcement mechanism, or new screening mandates.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Annual notice requirement to enrollees
This subsection requires health care service plans licensed under Knox‑Keene to provide a written or electronic notice about the benefits of behavioral health and wellness screenings for enrollees aged 8–18. Practically, plans must preserve an annual distribution channel (mail, email, member portal, or other electronic means) and document that the notice reaches the enrollee population; the statute does not prescribe a specific delivery date within each year.
Definition of behavioral health and wellness screening
The bill revises the statutory definition to describe a screening, test, or assessment that identifies indicators or symptoms of behavioral health issues and explicitly names depression and anxiety as examples. The language is illustrative, not exhaustive, but the edit removes a textual duplication and makes the statute clearer for plan communicators and regulators when determining whether a particular tool or message falls within the statute’s scope.
Content emphasis for notices
This subsection directs that notices provide information regarding benefits of screenings specifically for both depression and anxiety. For compliance teams, that means member materials should reference these conditions by name (or equivalent plain‑language descriptions) so that the content aligns with statutory expectations during audits.
Annual cadence remains unchanged
Subsection (c) reaffirms the once‑per‑year distribution requirement but leaves operational details—such as the exact timing, method, and proof of delivery—unspecified. Plans will rely on existing internal schedules and recordkeeping practices to demonstrate compliance rather than adapting to new statutory timelines.
Medi‑Cal managed care exclusion
This clause explicitly excludes Medi‑Cal managed care plans that contract with DHCS under the cited Welfare and Institutions Code chapters. The exclusion preserves the current division of responsibilities between state Medi‑Cal program communications and Knox‑Keene plan obligations, so Medi‑Cal plan administrators should not assume this amendment triggers new notice duties.
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
- Children and adolescents (ages 8–18) and their families — clearer statutory wording should lead to clearer member notices that explicitly cite depression and anxiety, improving awareness of screening benefits.
- Health care service plans — the tidy statutory language reduces ambiguity and the attendant legal risk around interpretation, which can lower the chance of disputes over what constitutes a behavioral health screening.
- Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC) — clearer text aids regulators in assessing plan materials and conducting audits without parsing awkward or duplicative statutory phrasing.
- Primary care and pediatric providers — clearer member communications can streamline referrals and reduce back‑and‑forth about whether a screening falls within recognized behavioral health outreach.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health plan compliance and communications teams — they must review and if necessary revise notice templates, websites, and member portal text to reflect the amended language (minor, one‑time administrative cost).
- Vendor partners (print houses, translation services, digital platform vendors) — updating stored templates, translations, and distribution workflows will incur modest operational expenses.
- Medi‑Cal enrollees and county administrating entities — because Medi‑Cal managed care is excluded, those enrollees do not receive the same statutory notice from Knox‑Keene plans, which may perpetuate an informational gap for low‑income families.
- State regulators — DMHC and DHCS may need to coordinate on enforcement boundaries and answer stakeholder questions about why the exclusion remains, producing small administrative burdens.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is precision versus scope: cleaning up statutory language reduces ambiguity and litigation risk, but a tighter, more illustrative definition risks narrowing what regulators and plans consider a behavioral health screening, potentially constraining outreach or excluding certain screening tools that previously fit under a broader interpretation.
On its face AB 2165 is housekeeping: it trims a drafting oddity and makes the statutory example list read more naturally. But small textual edits can have outsized interpretive effects.
By emphasizing depression and anxiety as examples, the statute signals to regulators and courts that those conditions are core to the screening concept; whether that emphasis narrows the practical scope of what counts as a behavioral health screening is an open implementation question. Plans that previously took a broad view of screening content may find regulators relying on the statutory examples when assessing compliance.
The bill leaves important operational details unspecified: it does not define the timeframe for the annual notice, acceptable distribution methods beyond 'written or electronic,' standards for proof of delivery, or the formality required in translated materials. Those gaps shift the burden back to plans and DMHC guidance.
The continued exclusion of Medi‑Cal managed care maintains a policy partition that raises equity questions — notice duties apply to most commercial plans but not to the Medi‑Cal managed‑care population — yet the bill makes no move to harmonize communications across payers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.