AB 585 amends two provisions of California's Health and Safety Code to push the statewide electronic death registration system toward modern technology. It replaces optional language about incorporating computer or facsimile technology with a requirement that the State Registrar use updated technology — explicitly naming computer and mobile telephone applications — to upgrade the death and fetal death registration program.
The bill also expands who may access the system by adding health care providers, specifically physicians and medical examiners, and clarifies local registrars’ access. AB 585 preserves existing privacy constraints on personally identifying information and keeps the option for local districts to file certificates manually.
Practically, the change ties the registration platform to operational tasks such as issuing permits for disposition of human remains, which has implications for public health workflows, county registrars, and IT implementation planning.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the State Registrar to upgrade the electronic death registration system using updated technology, including computer and mobile phone applications, and expands authorized users to include physicians, medical examiners, and local registrars. It also integrates the system with functions like issuing permits for disposition of human remains while maintaining legal limits on releasing personally identifying information.
Who It Affects
California Department of Public Health and the State Registrar (who must execute the upgrades), county/local registrars, physicians and medical examiners who certify deaths, funeral directors and coroner offices that use permits for disposition, and vendors that supply public health IT systems.
Why It Matters
This is a narrow technical change with operational reach: it shifts the project from discretionary tech adoption to an affirmative modernization mandate, enlarges the pool of users with access to sensitive records, and brings in mobile interfaces that can change how death certification and disposition permits are issued and tracked across the state.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 585 modifies two existing sections of California’s Health and Safety Code to press the state’s electronic death registration system toward more modern, mobile-capable technology and to broaden who can use it. Where current law authorized the State Registrar to "incorporate" computer or facsimile technology, the bill directs the Registrar to "use updated technology, including computer and mobile telephone applications," to upgrade the statewide program for death and fetal death registration.
That language makes modernization an affirmative obligation rather than an optional capability.
The bill expands access to the electronic system beyond the persons already responsible for completing death certificates by explicitly authorizing health care providers — including physicians and medical examiners — and local registrars to access the platform. That change affects who can view or interact with death records within the system and therefore has implications for authentication, role-based permissions, and audit trails.AB 585 also ties the upgraded system to specific operational tasks: the modernization expressly includes functions such as issuing permits for disposition of human remains.
At the same time, the bill reaffirms that the system must protect proper use of data and that access and release of personally identifying information remain subject to other statutory limits. Finally, the bill preserves local flexibility by confirming that counties may continue to file death and fetal death certificates manually, creating a mixed digital-manual regime that local offices will need to manage.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill changes permissive language to a mandate: the State Registrar "shall use updated technology, including computer and mobile telephone applications," to upgrade the statewide electronic death registration system.
AB 585 explicitly adds health care providers — naming physicians and medical examiners — and local registrars to the list of users who may access the electronic death registration system.
The modernization requirement covers operational features such as issuing permits for disposition of human remains, tying vital records IT to funeral/permit workflows.
The bill retains statutory protections: the system must protect proper use of registration information and remains subject to existing limits on accessing or releasing personally identifying information.
Local registration districts keep the option to file death and fetal death certificates manually, so the law establishes a dual digital/manual filing environment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Access expansion and data-protection reaffirmation
This section keeps the existing language that the department implemented an Internet-based electronic death registration system and re-states the system must protect proper use of the information. The substantive change is the explicit expansion of who may access the system: in addition to the persons already responsible for completing certificates, health care providers — specifically physicians and medical examiners — and local registrars are named as authorized users. Practically, this raises immediate questions about user roles: the statute authorizes access but does not define whether those users get view-only rights, signing capability, or other privileges, so implementing regulations and system design will need to allocate permissions and authentication levels.
From optional tech to required modernization (including mobile apps)
Subsection (a) replaces discretionary phrasing that allowed the State Registrar to "incorporate" computer or facsimile technology with a directive that the Registrar "shall use updated technology, including computer and mobile telephone applications," to upgrade the statewide registration program. The text also specifies that upgrades include functions like issuing permits for disposition of human remains. That wording obliges the Registrar to pursue concrete IT modernization and to consider mobile interfaces as part of the technology stack, which affects procurement, vendor selection, and security planning.
Preserves manual filing option for local districts
Subsection (b) makes clear that the statutory modernization mandate does not eliminate the option for local registration districts to submit death and fetal death certificates manually. The result is an expressly supported dual pathway: counties may continue legacy paper processes while the state develops or deploys upgraded digital capabilities. Operationally, this preserves local choice but also creates a requirement for interoperability or reconciliation between manual filings and the electronic system to ensure data consistency and complete statewide vital statistics.
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
- Physicians and medical examiners — they gain direct electronic access to the death registration system, which can speed certification and reduce phone/fax delays when confirming cause of death or signing certificates.
- State and local public health analysts — modernization and mobile-capable data collection can improve timeliness and completeness of mortality data for surveillance and reporting.
- Funeral directors and families — by expressly including permit issuance in the digital upgrade, the bill can shorten the time between certification and disposition permits if implemented smoothly.
- Vendors of public health IT — the mandate creates procurement opportunities for firms that provide electronic vital records and mobile applications.
- Local registrars — clarified statutory access can streamline workflows between medical certifiers and registrar offices when properly supported by role-based permissions.
Who Bears the Cost
- California Department of Public Health / State Registrar — responsible for planning, procuring, implementing, and securing the upgraded system without an appropriation attached to the bill text.
- County and local registration districts — will need to integrate with the upgraded system, train staff and local certifiers, and manage coexisting manual workflows, which can strain small counties with limited IT budgets.
- Medical certifiers (physicians/medical examiners) — while access can speed processes, they may face new login/authentication requirements, training, and potential liability from electronic signings.
- Funeral homes and coroners — short-term operational changes (new permit workflows, digital verifications) can require process redesign and investment in connectivity or software.
- Privacy and security teams — expanded user access and mobile applications increase the demand for stronger authentication, encryption, and monitoring, shifting costs to cybersecurity programs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between modernization's operational and public-health benefits — faster certification, integrated permits, and timelier mortality data — and the increased privacy, security, and implementation burdens that modernization imposes on state and local agencies, medical certifiers, and vendors, particularly when the statute mandates upgrades without setting technical standards or funding the work.
AB 585 delegates a lot of detail to implementation without providing funding, deadlines, or technical specifications. The statute requires the Registrar to use "updated technology, including ... mobile telephone applications," but it does not define what "updated" means, nor does it set performance, accessibility, or security standards.
That leaves significant discretion to the Department of Public Health and creates uncertainty about procurement scope, timelines, and the degree of interoperability required with county systems and funeral industry processes.
The bill expands authorized access to sensitive death records but stops short of role definitions: it does not say whether newly named users can edit or only view records, how electronic signatures will be authenticated, or what audit and retention rules will apply. Mobile apps in particular broaden the attack surface for personally identifying information; the text reiterates that release of PII is governed by other law, but it does not prescribe the technical or administrative safeguards needed to meet those laws.
Finally, maintaining a manual filing option preserves local flexibility but risks bifurcated data flows, duplicate entry, and differing data quality standards across counties unless the state invests in integration and reconciliation processes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.