AB 2398 adds the Physician Graduate License Act to authorize a new, limited California license for individuals who have graduated from medical school but have not completed residency. The license creates a supervised pathway to deliver care in California under a written, board‑approved supervising practice agreement.
This change is designed to expand clinical capacity in underserved areas by tapping graduates and internationally trained physicians who lack residency slots while keeping patient-safety controls through supervision, evaluation, continuing medical education, and eventual eligibility for a full license after demonstrated practice and examination requirements.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates a new physician graduate license administered by the Medical Board of California and requires each licensee to practice only under a written supervising practice agreement approved by the board. The board must promulgate supervision standards and may set application, initial, and renewal fees up to the amount charged for a full physician’s license.
Who It Affects
Recent medical-school graduates who have not completed residency, physicians who agree to supervise them, health clinics and hospitals in California (particularly facilities serving underserved areas), and the Medical Board responsible for oversight and regulation.
Why It Matters
This bill alters the entry pathway to clinical practice in California by institutionalizing supervised, non‑residency practice as a licensure route. Employers, credentialing officers, and insurers will need to incorporate new supervision, disclosure, and renewal requirements into hiring and risk-management processes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines a 'physician graduate' as someone who finished medical school but did not complete a residency and gives the Medical Board authority to issue a distinct license for that class. To qualify, the applicant must show recent graduation from an accredited or board‑recognized foreign medical school, pass the first two steps of the U.S. medical licensing exams (or an equivalent test the board accepts), demonstrate English proficiency, and hold an employment offer that includes a supervising physician in California.
The law bars applicants who have already finished a residency or who previously had a physician graduate license revoked or suspended.
Supervision is the core control in the statute. A sponsoring physician must hold an unrestricted California license, be board‑certified in the specialty where the graduate will practice, maintain an active California practice, and have no pending disciplinary matters.
The sponsoring physician and the physician graduate must sign a written supervising practice agreement that the board must approve; that agreement must lay out the precise scope of duties, supervision plan (including how often supervision will be direct and how chart reviews are handled), the sponsor’s contact information, and the practice locations.The board gets rulemaking authority to set detailed supervision standards: it must establish direct supervision requirements for the initial six months, a cap on how many physician graduates each sponsor may supervise, and protocols for emergencies and after‑hours care. Licenses issued under the act run for three years; renewals require ongoing practice under an approved agreement, at least 50 hours of continuing medical education per renewal period, and a satisfactory performance evaluation from the sponsoring physician.
After five years practicing under this license, a physician graduate can apply for a full, unrestricted physician and surgeon license if they pass Step 3, receive positive evaluations from all sponsoring physicians, have no disciplinary history, and satisfy other chapter requirements.The bill also requires that physician graduates disclose their status to patients in writing (and verbally on request), including the sponsoring physician’s name and contact details. Finally, the board must set fees for applications and renewals at an amount sufficient to cover administration but not higher than fees for a full physician’s license.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Applicants must have graduated from medical school within the preceding four years and either hold a degree from an LCME/COCA‑accredited school or a foreign school the board recognizes as equivalent.
The board requires successful completion of USMLE Steps 1 and 2 (or an equivalent exam the board accepts) before issuing a physician graduate license.
A sponsoring physician must be board‑certified in the specialty where the graduate will work, maintain an active California practice, and cannot have any pending disciplinary action.
Each supervising practice agreement must be submitted to and approved by the Medical Board and must specify the scope of practice, supervision plan (including frequency of direct supervision and chart review protocols), and practice locations.
Renewal is contingent on continued supervised practice, 50 hours of continuing medical education every three years, and a satisfactory evaluation from the sponsoring physician; a pathway to a full license requires five years under the program plus Step 3 and positive evaluations.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Name and purpose (Physician Graduate License Act)
This short provision names the new article and anchors the policy goal: expanding supervised pathways to practice while preserving safety. For administrators and counsel, the naming clause signals that subsequent regulations and guidance will be located under a discrete statutory rubric distinct from the standard physician license rules.
Definitions: 'physician graduate', 'sponsoring physician', 'supervising practice agreement'
The statute narrowly defines the class of licensees and key actors, which limits the scheme’s reach to individuals who have medical degrees but no residency completion. By legislating the content of the supervising practice agreement as a defined term, the bill forces regulators to treat that agreement as the central compliance document for both sponsors and licensees.
Eligibility and documentation for issuing a physician graduate license
This section sets concrete eligibility rules: recent graduation (within four years), accredited or board‑recognized foreign credentials, Steps 1 and 2, English proficiency, and a job offer tied to an approved sponsor. Practically, the board will need to design application forms and verification protocols to check foreign‑school equivalence, exam results, timelines, and employment offers—creating an upfront documentation burden for applicants and the board.
Supervision standards, sponsoring physician qualifications, and agreement approval
Here the bill imposes specific qualifications on sponsoring physicians (full, unrestricted license; board certification; active California practice; no pending disciplinary action) and requires board approval of the supervising practice agreement. That shifts significant operational responsibility onto sponsors and gives the board clear levers—approval, denial, and later enforcement—over where and how physician graduates may practice. The statutory command to regulate maximum supervisees and initial direct supervision also creates foreseeable limits employers must design around.
Term length, renewal conditions, and conversion to full license
Licenses run in three‑year blocks and are renewable provided the licensee remains under an approved agreement, completes 50 hours of CME per renewal period, and receives satisfactory sponsor evaluations. The provision also creates a defined five‑year track to a full license conditioned on passing Step 3 and meeting routine licensure criteria. Compliance teams will need to track CME, sponsor evaluations, and exam completions to support renewal and conversion applications.
Patient disclosure requirement
The bill requires written disclosure to each patient—and verbal disclosure if requested—identifying the clinician as a physician graduate and providing the sponsoring physician’s contact information. This establishes an informed‑consent style transparency rule that clinics must operationalize in intake, signage, consent forms, and staff training, and it creates a documented touchpoint the board can audit in complaints.
Fee authority and limit
The Medical Board must set application, initial licensure, and renewal fees at levels sufficient to cover program costs but capped at the fees charged for a full physician’s license. That statutory cap protects applicants from higher relative fees but may constrain the board’s ability to fully fund scaling of the program without reallocating existing resources or seeking other appropriations.
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
- Recent medical‑school graduates without residency positions — gain a supervised, state‑recognized pathway to clinical practice and employment in California.
- Clinics and health systems in federally designated shortage and medically underserved areas — acquire an expanded candidate pool to staff primary care and other services, potentially increasing capacity.
- International medical graduates recognized by the board — receive an alternative route to practice in California if their education is deemed equivalent and they meet exam requirements.
- Patients in underserved communities — gain increased access to clinicians authorized to provide supervised care locally, which can reduce appointment wait times and expand service availability.
- State workforce planners and policymakers — receive a flexible tool to address regional physician shortages without altering residency slot allocations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sponsoring physicians — must shoulder supervision time, documentation, and evaluative responsibilities and may face limits on how many graduates they can supervise.
- Medical Board of California — absorbs the administrative and enforcement workload of reviewing agreements, setting regulations, approving sponsors, and monitoring compliance; fee caps may limit cost recovery.
- Employers and credentialing offices — must implement new onboarding, supervision protocols, disclosure processes, CME tracking, and recordkeeping to remain compliant.
- Malpractice insurers and risk managers — may face uncertainty about risk profiles for supervised non‑residency practice and could adjust premiums or require additional oversight.
- Clinics lacking board‑certified physicians in certain specialties — may be unable to host physician graduates even where patient need is high, reducing the practical reach of the program.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is access versus standardization: the bill expands access by allowing supervised practice outside residency, but it substitutes variable, employer‑and‑sponsor‑dependent supervision for the standardized, accredited training residency provides—raising unresolved questions about how to ensure consistent quality while also creating enough supervised placements to meaningfully alleviate shortages.
The bill resolves one problem—insufficient clinician supply—by reallocating supervisory and regulatory responsibilities, but it leaves open several operational challenges. The Medical Board must develop verification workflows for foreign school equivalence and exam substitutes, draft detailed supervision regulations (including what constitutes adequate 'direct supervision'), and create oversight mechanisms for sponsor evaluations.
Those rulemaking tasks are resource‑intensive and will determine how protective the supervision regime actually is in practice.
The statutory design also creates potential mismatches between intent and capacity. Requiring sponsoring physicians to be board‑certified and free of pending discipline sets a high bar that may limit placements in precisely the areas most underserved.
The five‑year pathway to full licensure balances practice‑based assessment against standardized exams (Step 3), but it could leave licensees in prolonged professional limbo if sponsorship or evaluation opportunities are scarce. Finally, the patient disclosure rule creates transparency, but enforcement will depend on complaint intake and audit capacity; absent active monitoring, disclosure alone may not change patient outcomes or risk exposure significantly.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.