AB 375 inserts a new telehealth provision into the Medical Practice Act that (1) defines core telehealth terms, (2) expressly includes qualified autism service providers and paraprofessionals in the statute’s definition of "health care provider," (3) requires that patients give and providers document verbal or written consent before telehealth care begins, and (4) allows hospital governing bodies to grant telehealth privileges based on credentialing information provided by a distant-site hospital or telehealth entity under federal standards. The bill also makes noncompliance with the consent rule unprofessional conduct, reiterates that telehealth does not expand scope of practice, and excludes incarcerated patients from the section’s reach.
This matters to hospitals, telehealth vendors, autism service professionals, and compliance officers because it both broadens who may be treated as a telehealth provider under California law and streamlines hospital privileging for remote clinicians — while adding explicit consent and documentation obligations that create enforceable discipline exposure under the Medical Practice Act.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill establishes definitions for telehealth terminology, adds qualified autism service paraprofessionals to the Medical Practice Act’s definition of "health care provider," requires documented verbal or written patient consent before telehealth delivery, and authorizes hospitals to accept distant-site credentialing and grant telehealth privileges consistent with specified federal regulations.
Who It Affects
Licensed clinicians and certified qualified autism service providers and paraprofessionals; hospitals and their medical staff offices; telehealth companies that transmit asynchronous and synchronous encounters; and compliance and licensing boards that discipline for unprofessional conduct.
Why It Matters
AB 375 lowers administrative friction for hospitals to onboard remote clinicians and brings the autism services workforce explicitly into California’s telehealth regulatory framework, while imposing new documentation duties that create enforceable liability and supervision questions for paraprofessionals working remotely.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a compact telehealth framework inside California’s Medical Practice Act. It starts with straightforward definitions: synchronous (real-time) and asynchronous store-and-forward interactions, originating and distant sites, and telehealth as an umbrella term that includes telemedicine.
Those definitions set the scope for which interactions and locations the rest of the section covers.
Crucially, AB 375 expands the statute’s definition of "health care provider" to name qualified autism service providers and paraprofessionals certified by national entities, aligning telehealth coverage with the credentialing regimes referenced in the Health and Safety and Insurance Codes. That explicit inclusion means those autism-service professionals are treated as providers for the purposes of telehealth rules — subject to the same confidentiality, standards-of-practice, and disciplinary provisions as other licensees or certified providers.Before any telehealth encounter, the initiating provider must inform the patient that telehealth will be used and obtain and document verbal or written consent.
The bill makes failure to follow that requirement an act of unprofessional conduct under the Medical Practice Act, creating a compliance obligation for clinicians and recordkeeping systems for practices and telehealth platforms. At the same time, the text stresses that telehealth cannot be used to expand a provider’s statutory scope of practice or to authorize services in settings or manners not otherwise lawful.On hospital operations, AB 375 authorizes a hospital’s governing body to grant privileges and verify credentials for telehealth providers by relying on medical staff recommendations that themselves may depend on information furnished by a distant-site hospital or telehealth entity — explicitly tying that authorization to the credentialing approach reflected in 42 C.F.R. sections cited in the bill.
Finally, the section applies general confidentiality and professional-responsibility laws to telehealth, but it excludes patients under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation or other correctional facilities from this provision.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds 'qualified autism service provider' and 'qualified autism service paraprofessional' certified under Health & Safety Code §1374.73 and Insurance Code §10144.51 to the Medical Practice Act’s definition of 'health care provider.', Providers must obtain and document verbal or written patient consent before delivering care via telehealth; failure to do so constitutes unprofessional conduct under the Medical Practice Act.
AB 375 affirms that existing confidentiality, professional-responsibility, and standards-of-practice laws fully apply to telehealth interactions in California.
Hospitals may grant telehealth privileges and verify credentials based on distant-site information and medical staff recommendations consistent with 42 C.F.R. §§482.12, 482.22, and 485.616.
The statute specifically excludes patients in Department of Corrections and other correctional facilities from its telehealth provisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions for telehealth terms
This subsection defines asynchronous store-and-forward, distant and originating sites, synchronous interaction, telehealth, and who counts as a health care provider for this section. The operational effect is to align the terminology used in regulations, billing, and policies: asynchronous transfers are treated as telehealth; a clinician’s physical location (distant site) and the patient’s location (originating site) are the regulatory anchors for where and when telehealth rules apply. Compliance teams should map these definitions to existing EHR, consent forms, and telehealth product features.
Informed consent requirement and documentation
This provision requires that the provider who initiates telehealth inform the patient of that modality and obtain either verbal or written consent, which must be recorded in the medical record. The requirement creates a discrete, documentable trigger for audits and discipline; electronic consent captured via telehealth platforms, or documented clinician notes recording verbal consent, will satisfy the requirement so long as the record demonstrates patient notification and agreement.
Scope, professional obligations, and confidentiality
These subsections make three points: telehealth consent does not waive a patient’s right to in-person care during a treatment course; telehealth isn’t a mechanism to expand statutory scope of practice or authorize services not otherwise lawful; and existing confidentiality and standards-of-practice regimes apply to telehealth. The bill also makes noncompliance with the consent rule unprofessional conduct while expressly noting Section 2314 does not apply, signaling a targeted enforcement route under the Medical Practice Act rather than the malpractice regime.
Exclusion for correctional populations and hospital privileging rules
Subdivision (h) excludes patients under correctional custody from this section. Subdivision (i) authorizes hospital governing bodies to grant privileges and verify credentials for telehealth providers based on distant-site information and medical staff recommendations that may rely on documents from the distant-site hospital or telehealth entity. The subsection ties California’s approach to specific federal credentialing language in 42 C.F.R., effectively permitting hospitals to accept remote credentialing verification in accordance with CMS-recognized processes.
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
- Qualified autism service paraprofessionals and certified autism providers — the bill explicitly recognizes them as telehealth providers, which clarifies their standing for credentialing, reimbursement discussions, and hospital privileging.
- Rural and underserved patients seeking autism-related services — the inclusion of paraprofessionals and clarified telehealth definitions can expand the pool of available providers and modalities for care.
- Hospitals and telehealth entities — the ability to grant privileges and accept distant-site credentialing information reduces administrative friction when onboarding remote clinicians.
- Telehealth platform vendors and health IT teams — the consent documentation requirement creates predictable product and workflow needs (consent capture, audit trails, and storage), which vendors can incorporate as standard features.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual providers and paraprofessionals — they must ensure consent is obtained and recorded and that telehealth practice stays within their lawful scope, increasing documentation and supervisory responsibilities.
- Hospital medical staff offices — accepting distant-site credentialing shifts some verification practices and may require new procedures to evaluate remote documentation while maintaining local credentialing standards.
- Licensing boards and enforcement bodies — the new unprofessional-conduct route for consent failures creates additional disciplinary work and interpretive questions about what constitutes adequate documentation.
- Telehealth companies and EHR vendors — they must implement or modify consent-recording features, secure storage, and audit capabilities to support regulatory compliance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between expanding access and administrative efficiency (by recognizing autism paraprofessionals for telehealth and allowing hospitals to rely on distant-site credentialing) and preserving patient safety and accountability (by ensuring appropriate supervision, rigorous credential verification, and clear, enforceable consent practices). The bill tilts toward access and operational flexibility but leaves unresolved how to balance that with consistent safeguards.
AB 375 advances access and administrative flexibility, but it leaves several implementation details open. The consent rule requires documentation but does not define the content or duration of consent (for example, whether one documented consent covers multiple visits or needs to be refreshed for each encounter).
That leaves health systems and vendors to decide durable policies, which creates short-term variation and potential audit exposure. The bill reaffirms that telehealth does not expand scope of practice, yet it simultaneously elevates paraprofessionals into the roster of telehealth providers; practical tension will arise around supervision, delegated functions, and liability when paraprofessionals deliver care remotely.
The hospital privileging authorization follows federal credentialing language, which facilitates reliance on distant-site verification, but it does not resolve cross-jurisdictional licensure issues: nothing in the text clarifies whether a distant-site clinician located out-of-state can practice via telehealth in California absent appropriate licensure. The exclusion of correctional patients creates a carve-out where telehealth rules here don’t apply, potentially complicating continuity of care for incarcerated populations who often rely on remote services.
Finally, while the bill reiterates applicability of confidentiality laws, it does not add new security standards or express HIPAA alignment; providers and vendors must still reconcile state consent documentation with federal privacy and security obligations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.