AB 510 creates a statutory right for a treating provider to request a peer-to-peer review when a health plan or insurer delays, denies, or modifies a service on the basis of medical necessity. The bill requires the plan or insurer to connect the requesting provider directly with a peer reviewer of the same or similar specialty, and sets strict timelines: within two business days for routine requests and within 24 hours for cases presenting an imminent and serious threat to health.
If the plan or insurer fails to meet those timelines the bill treats the request as approved and supersedes any prior denial, delay, or modification. The measure adds parallel requirements to the Health and Safety Code (for Knox‑Keene plans) and the Insurance Code (for insurers), modifies existing grievance rules, and allows non‑physician providers to obtain review by an appropriately qualified peer health care professional.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds matching peer‑review requirements to California law: providers can demand a direct peer‑to‑peer discussion when care is denied, delayed, or modified for medical necessity; plans and insurers must arrange the peer review within two business days or within 24 hours for imminent threats. A missed deadline converts the provider’s request into an approved authorization that overrides the earlier adverse decision.
Who It Affects
The rules bind health care service plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care and health insurers regulated by the Department of Insurance, as well as contracted specialist reviewers and the clinicians who request peer reviews (physician and non‑physician providers). Patients whose care is subject to utilization review are secondarily affected through faster resolution or automatic approvals.
Why It Matters
AB 510 converts a discretionary dispute step into a time‑sensitive, enforceable right with a binary enforcement mechanism (deemed approval), creating operational and compliance obligations for plans and insurers and a meaningful shortcut for providers trying to overturn utilization decisions.
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 new, enforceable pathway for clinician‑requested peer‑to‑peer review whenever a plan or insurer makes an adverse medical‑necessity determination that delays, denies, or modifies care. Rather than leaving clinician discussions to informal processes or vendor workflows, AB 510 says the treating provider can demand a direct conversation with a reviewer who is a peer — defined as a physician of the same or similar specialty, or, when the requester is not a physician, a licensed health care professional with comparable competence and specialty.
Two procedural features stand out. First, the plan or insurer must ‘‘directly and expeditiously’’ connect the requesting clinician with the peer reviewer without forcing the clinician to interact with other plan employees or intermediaries — the bill contemplates an immediate handoff to a qualified clinician.
Second, the statute imposes tight timing: two business days for standard peer review requests and, for cases involving imminent and serious threats to health, a maximum 24‑hour window. If the plan or insurer misses the applicable window, the provider’s request is deemed approved and that approval supersedes prior denials, delays, or modifications.The bill also clarifies that a plan’s or insurer’s contracted specialist reviewer satisfies the peer requirement so long as that reviewer is a peer physician or an authorized peer health care professional.
The amendments are placed in both the Health and Safety Code (adding Section 1367.017 and amending grievance timelines in Section 1368.01) and the Insurance Code (amending Section 10123.137 and adding Section 10123.138), so the rule applies to state‑regulated managed care plans and insurers alike. Finally, the legislation preserves existing expedited grievance procedures for imminent threats, while grafting the peer‑to‑peer timing requirement onto those grievance frameworks.Practically, compliance will require plans and insurers to ensure rapid access to a vetted pool of clinician reviewers across specialties, implement a direct‑hand‑off workflow that documents the connection, and track response deadlines tightly.
For providers the change offers a faster, clinician‑level avenue to overturn utilization denials; for patients it can mean quicker access to care in urgent situations. For payers, the deemed‑approval mechanism raises financial and legal exposure if staffing, vendor contracts, or routing systems fail to meet the statutory standards.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 510 requires plans and insurers to connect a requesting provider directly with a peer physician or peer health care professional without routing the provider through additional plan staff.
Peer‑to‑peer reviews must occur within two business days of request, or within 24 hours when the enrollee/insured faces an imminent and serious threat to health.
If a plan or insurer fails to meet the statutory timeline, the provider’s request for the health care service is deemed approved, superseding any prior denial, delay, or modification.
A contracted specialist reviewer counts as a valid peer reviewer so long as they are a licensed physician (or an authorized peer health care professional when the requester is non‑physician) with competence in the clinical issue.
The bill adds mirror provisions to the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code, modifying grievance resolution rules and extending the peer‑to‑peer requirement to both Knox‑Keene plans and state‑regulated insurers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
New peer‑to‑peer review right for plan‑regulated health care service plans
This new section gives a treating provider the right to request a peer‑to‑peer review of any decision by a health care service plan that delays, denies, or modifies care on medical necessity grounds. It mandates a direct connection between the requesting provider and the peer reviewer, sets the two‑business‑day (or 24‑hour urgent) timeline, defines ‘‘peer physician’’ and ‘‘peer health care professional,’’ and declares that a missed timeline results in the authorization being deemed approved. Operationally, plans must adapt routing, staffing, and documentation practices to show they met the ‘‘direct and expeditious’’ connection requirement.
Adjusts grievance timing and links to peer‑to‑peer process
This amendment retains the baseline 30‑day grievance resolution mandate but explicitly incorporates expedited processes for imminent and serious health threats and references the new peer‑to‑peer statute. It also reiterates the plan’s obligation to give written notice and a three‑day written status or disposition in expedited cases. The practical effect is to synchronize the peer‑to‑peer transfer with the plan’s grievance and expedited review workflows.
Provider dispute procedure clarified for insurers
The amendment keeps insurers’ existing duty to maintain a provider dispute resolution mechanism and to issue written determinations within 45 working days for standard provider disputes, but it links insurer procedures to the new peer‑to‑peer requirements added elsewhere in the Insurance Code. Insurers that share systems with affiliated Knox‑Keene entities can align processes, but they must ensure the peer‑review timings and direct‑connect requirement are met for state‑regulated disputes.
Mirror peer‑to‑peer review rule for health insurers
This new section imposes the same direct connection, specialty match, timeline, and deemed‑approval rules on health insurers as are placed on health care service plans in Section 1367.017. It also allows contracted specialist reviewers to serve as peers when qualified and permits peer health care professionals to review when the requesting provider is not a physician. Insurers will need clinician staffing or vendor contracts to provide rapid specialty matches.
Constitutional reimbursement statement
The final provision repeats a standard state‑law statement that the Legislature does not intend to provide state reimbursement for local costs associated with this act under Article XIII B, citing the statutory categories that trigger this exception. While procedural, it signals that enforcement consequences (including criminal liability for willful Knox‑Keene violations) remain a potential exposure for regulated entities.
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
- Treating providers (physicians and authorized non‑physician clinicians): gain a formal, time‑bound clinician‑to‑clinician channel to challenge utilization denials, potentially shortening dispute resolution and reducing administrative back‑and‑forth.
- Patients with urgent conditions: receive faster escalation for imminent threats through a 24‑hour pathway and, if timelines are missed, automatic approval of requested services.
- Specialist reviewers and clinician advocates: experience clearer, statutory authority to resolve disputes through direct clinical dialogue rather than indirect administrative appeals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health care service plans and health insurers regulated by California: must staff or contract a broader, rapidly available pool of specialty peer reviewers, implement direct‑connect workflows, and enhance tracking and documentation to avoid deemed approvals.
- Third‑party utilization management vendors: face reengineering of call‑routing and reviewer assignment processes and possible renegotiation of service level agreements to meet the two‑day/24‑hour windows.
- Regulatory agencies (DMHC and Department of Insurance): will have increased oversight and enforcement duties and may face more complaints and litigation over whether plans met the ‘‘direct and expeditious’’ connection and timeline requirements.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 510 trades faster, clinician‑level access to appeal decisions and a strong enforcement stick (deemed approvals) against operational feasibility and fiscal control: giving providers a near‑automatic path to overturn denials improves access and transparency but risks undermining utilization management if plans cannot consistently meet the direct‑connect timelines or if the deemed‑approval remedy is gamed.
Two implementation ambiguities will drive disputes and require regulatory guidance. First, the statute’s ‘‘direct and expeditious’’ connection phrasing is operationally vague: must the plan enable an immediate live clinician‑to‑clinician phone or video call, or will scheduled callbacks within two days suffice?
Documentation standards and audit trails will determine whether a plan met the requirement. Second, the ‘‘same or similar specialty’’ standard for peer matching invites disagreement: will minor subspecialty differences suffice, who adjudicates mismatches, and how will plans inventory reviewer competencies across rare specialties?
The deemed‑approval remedy is blunt and creates incentive effects. On one hand it pressures plans to resource reviewer availability; on the other, it could encourage providers to request peer reviews strategically or to exploit scheduling bottlenecks.
Plans may respond by approving more requests upfront or by tightening preauthorization language; either reaction affects utilization management goals and costs. Finally, the statute applies to state‑regulated plans and insurers; it does not address potential preemption issues for self‑funded ERISA plans, raising uncertainty about coverage scope and possible shifts in dispute volume to state entities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.