AB2391 revives and restates the Song‑Brown Health Care Workforce Training Act and broadens its scope beyond family physicians. The bill formalizes a state program to increase the supply of primary‑care clinicians by contracting with accredited medical schools, teaching health centers, nursing and advanced practice programs, and hospitals using per‑student or per‑resident capitation payments.
The bill emphasizes (1) recruiting and strengthening family medicine programs at medical schools, ideally led by board‑certified family physicians; (2) expanding training to include primary‑care physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses; and (3) shifting more training into community and rural hospitals and non‑university sites. It requires professional and administrative accountability for cost‑effectiveness and targets funds to geographic areas with recognized unmet primary‑care needs, changing where and for whom state workforce dollars are likely to flow.
At a Glance
What It Does
Names and restates the Song‑Brown program and expands eligible trainees to include family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, primary‑care PAs, primary‑care NPs, and registered nurses. It authorizes state contracts with accredited training programs and teaching health centers using per‑trainee capitation formulas and requires program accountability.
Who It Affects
Accredited medical schools, teaching hospitals and health centers, nursing and PA training programs, community and rural hospitals that host residencies, and state workforce planners managing contract awards and oversight. Underserved communities are the intended recipients of increased clinical capacity.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts policy toward financing training across professions and non‑university sites, which can expand access in rural and underserved areas but also reallocates limited state workforce dollars. How capitation rates, accountability metrics, and priority areas are defined will determine whether the policy actually produces more clinicians where they are needed.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2391 restates the Song‑Brown Health Care Workforce Training Act as a state program focused on increasing primary‑care capacity. It begins from a set of legislative findings: California lacks enough family physicians and nurses, specialization in medicine has reduced primary‑care supply, and expanding training for primary‑care PAs, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses will improve access.
Those findings set the program’s purpose: to increase the number of trained primary‑care clinicians and deliver more primary care to areas with unmet needs.
Practically, the bill authorizes the state to implement the program through contracts with accredited medical schools, teaching health centers, nursing and PA programs, hospitals, and other delivery systems. Those contracts are to be based on per‑student or per‑resident capitation formulas — meaning programs receive a set payment per trainee rather than line‑item grants.
The bill stresses that training should not be confined to university hospitals: community and rural hospitals are explicitly encouraged as residency sites and affiliations with accredited schools are favored to place training where the workforce shortage exists.AB2391 also pushes for organizational changes inside training institutions. It encourages each medical school to organize a strong family medicine department, ideally led by a physician with specialty certification and broad clinical experience in family medicine.
That leadership requirement signals the bill’s quality expectation: expansion of slots is not meant to undercut the standards of primary‑care training.Finally, the bill requires that contracted programs be professionally and administratively accountable so the state achieves cost‑effectiveness in meeting training standards. It ties funding and program design to Article 2 (beginning at Section 128250), which appears to set out additional standards and criteria.
The combination of expanded eligible professions, capitation contracting, and an emphasis on community training sites reframes how California would use public dollars to build its primary‑care workforce.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill names the program the Song‑Brown Health Care Workforce Training Act and codifies it at Section 128200.
It expands eligible trainees to include family medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics/gynecology, pediatrics, primary‑care physician assistants, primary‑care nurse practitioners, and registered nurses.
State implementation will rely on contracts with accredited medical schools, teaching health centers, nursing and PA programs, hospitals, and other delivery systems paid on a per‑trainee (capitation) basis.
The bill explicitly encourages community and rural hospitals to develop family medicine residencies and to be used as training sites in affiliation with accredited medical schools.
Contracts and programs must be professionally and administratively accountable, and funds are intended to prioritize geographic areas with a recognized unmet primary‑care need.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Official name and citation
This subsection gives the statute its working title: the Song‑Brown Health Care Workforce Training Act. Naming matters: it imports the policy legacy of past Song‑Brown workforce efforts and signals continuity with prior state investments in primary‑care training, which can matter for stakeholders seeking statutory authority for funding and program rules.
Findings on physician shortages and educational priorities
Subsections (b)(1)–(4) set the legislative findings that justify the program: California has too few family physicians, medical education has favored specialization, and public and private training institutions should prioritize the recruitment and improved training of medical students and residents toward primary care. The text encourages but does not mandate each medical school to create a family medicine program or department and states the intent that such departments be led by board‑certified family physicians with broad clinical experience — a quality control signal rather than a statutory licensing rule.
Nursing shortage and program expansion to nurses
Subsection (b)(5) adds nurses to the statute’s list of workforce priorities, explicitly declaring nurse supply a public purpose and endorsing expansion of the Song‑Brown program to increase registered nurse numbers. This is a substantive scope change: the original Song‑Brown focused on physicians; AB2391 brings nursing into the same statutory framework, opening the door to shared funding mechanisms.
Use of community/rural hospitals and program implementation through contracts
These portions encourage community and especially rural hospitals to develop residencies in affiliation with accredited medical schools and call for program implementation via contracts with accredited institutions, teaching health centers, and other delivery systems. Contracts are to use per‑student or per‑resident capitation formulas, shifting payment away from episodic or line‑item grants toward predictable per‑trainee funding. The subsection also mandates professional and administrative accountability and ties program standards to additional provisions beginning at Section 128250.
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
- Underserved and rural communities — the bill intentionally targets areas with recognized unmet primary‑care needs, which should increase local training capacity and, over time, clinician supply where shortages are greatest.
- Students and trainees in primary care, PAs, NPs, and nursing programs — expanding eligible trainees increases funded training slots and offers more entry points into state‑supported clinical education.
- Community and rural hospitals and teaching health centers — the bill explicitly encourages these sites as training locations and sets up capitation contracts that can provide steadier revenue to sustain residency or clinical training programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- State agencies that manage contracts and oversight — they will need staff, metrics, and resources to design capitation rates, evaluate program accountability, and allocate funds according to priority area determinations.
- Academic medical centers and specialty programs — expanding funds to non‑university sites and multiple professions may mean competition for limited state dollars and a potential reallocation away from existing residency slots or university programs.
- Hospitals and training programs taking on new residency or clinical training capacity — building training infrastructure, faculty time, supervision, and administrative systems to meet accountability requirements will require up‑front investment and operational adjustments.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between widening and diversifying where and for whom California pays to train clinicians (to get more hands in underserved places) versus ensuring those trainees receive sufficiently resourced, high‑quality education (which often requires costly faculty, supervision, and infrastructure). Expanding slots across professions and sites can improve access but risks diluting educational quality or simply reallocating limited funds without increasing overall clinician supply.
The bill is a policy framework rather than a detailed implementation statute. Key mechanics are left undefined: how the state will set capitation rates, which agency will administer contracts, what accountability metrics will look like, and how "recognized unmet priority need" will be identified and updated.
Those gaps matter because capitation formulas determine whether a program can cover teaching costs (faculty, supervision, administrative overhead) and whether community hospitals can realistically host residencies.
Expanding eligibility to PAs, NPs, and RNs improves workforce flexibility but raises allocation trade‑offs. If state funds are finite, increasing slots for non‑physician trainees could reduce the number of new physician residency positions unless the legislature appropriates additional dollars.
Reliance on voluntary encouragement for medical schools to create or strengthen family medicine departments may not be effective where institutional incentives favor high‑revenue specialty departments. Finally, moving training into community and rural settings helps distribution but requires ensuring clinical case mix and faculty expertise meet accreditation standards — otherwise programs could struggle to meet educational outcomes or attract trainees.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.