AB 92 sets a statutory floor for patient visitation by naming specific relatives who must be allowed to visit absent narrowly defined exceptions, and it bars facilities from prohibiting in‑person visits in end‑of‑life situations unless the patient objects. The bill preserves a facility’s ability to impose reasonable limits (hours, age, supervision, number of visitors) while requiring alternate visitation protocols when access must be restricted for health or safety reasons.
The measure also addresses infection‑control friction points: it allows facilities to require visitors to follow PPE and testing rules no more restrictive than those for staff, and it obligates facilities to furnish PPE and testing to visitors when those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities. AB 92 further clarifies visitor exclusions for violent persons, creates an infant exception to visitor caps, references the Family Code definition of domestic partner, and disclaims creating new civil or criminal liability for compliant facilities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires health facilities to allow visits from a specified list of family members unless the facility has a no‑visitor policy, the patient objects, or the facility reasonably determines a specific visitor would pose a danger or significant disruption. It prohibits blanket bans on in‑person end‑of‑life visits except when the patient declines, and permits facilities to require PPE/testing for visitors so long as those requirements are no stricter than staff rules.
Who It Affects
Hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, hospice programs, and other licensed health facilities; infection control and compliance officers who set visitation rules; and families of patients, particularly those facing end‑of‑life care. Facilities’ supply chains and state/local public health agencies also face operational implications.
Why It Matters
The bill converts common policy practice into statutory obligations, narrowing the circumstances under which facilities can deny visitation and forcing administrators to document alternate protocols and PPE/testing plans. That changes compliance priorities, potentially increases resource burdens, and creates interpretation questions around vague standards like what ‘reasonably determines’ means in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 92 lists who counts as a permitted visitor: the patient’s spouse or domestic partner, children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, the children of the patient’s spouse or domestic partner, and the spouse or domestic partner of the patient’s parent or child. Health facilities must allow those people to visit unless the facility operates under a complete no‑visitor rule, the patient explicitly refuses the person, or the facility reasonably determines that admitting that particular visitor would endanger someone’s health or safety or would significantly disrupt operations.
The bill therefore removes broad discretion to refuse visitors while leaving room for individualized exclusions.
The statute treats end‑of‑life situations differently: facilities may not prohibit in‑person visitation in those situations unless the patient objects. At the same time, the bill recognizes safety concerns by permitting facilities to deny entry to violent or potentially violent visitors, and by allowing facilities to require visitors to follow PPE and testing protocols — but only up to the standard imposed on staff.
Where state or local agencies have made PPE or testing resources readily available to the facility, the facility must provide those resources to visitors for the duration of the visit; visitors may also bring their own supplies if they meet facility minimums.When facilities restrict visitors for health or safety reasons, AB 92 requires them to develop “alternate visitation protocols” that facilitate access to the greatest extent possible while maintaining safety. The statute does not prescribe what those alternate protocols must look like, which leaves administrators flexibility but also raises questions about documentation and standardization.
The bill also allows facilities to set reasonable limits — hours, visitor age, supervision of minors, and maximum numbers — and it states that infants under one year do not count against a numeric visitor cap.Finally, AB 92 borrows the Family Code definition of domestic partner, explicitly excludes violent persons from visitation rights, and contains a clause stating it does not create new civil or criminal liability for facilities that comply. Put together, the measure requires facilities to prioritize patient‑chosen presence (especially at the end of life) while preserving a set of safety and operational exceptions that facilities must apply on a case‑by‑case basis.
The Five Things You Need to Know
AB 92 lists permitted visitors narrowly: spouse/domestic partner, children, parents, grandchildren, grandparents, children of the patient’s spouse/partner, and the spouse/partner of the patient’s parent or child.
Facilities may not prohibit in‑person visits in end‑of‑life situations unless the patient has told staff they do not want that person to visit.
A facility may require visitors to follow PPE and testing rules no stricter than those for facility staff, and must provide PPE/testing to visitors when those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities.
Infants under one year old are exempt from being counted against any imposed limit on the number of simultaneous visitors.
The statute declares that compliance with its provisions does not create new civil or criminal liability for the facility for illnesses, infections, or injuries occurring while a visitor is present.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Baseline visitation rights and narrow exceptions
Subdivision (a) sets the primary rule: a health facility must allow visits from a specified list of relatives unless one of three narrow conditions applies — the facility has a blanket no‑visitor policy, the patient objects to that person, or the facility reasonably determines that admitting the visitor would endanger health/safety or significantly disrupt operations. For administrators this creates a presumption in favor of visitation and requires an individualized determination before excluding a listed visitor.
Safety and alternate visitation protocols
This subsection authorizes facility restrictions when a particular visitor presents a danger or would disrupt operations, but it also mandates that facilities develop alternate visitation protocols when access must be restricted for health or safety reasons. Practically, that means facilities cannot simply lock doors; they must design and document ways to maximize visitation (e.g., scheduled visits, supervised or virtual options) while protecting health and operations.
End‑of‑life in‑person visitation mandate
Subdivision (b) creates an important carve‑out: in end‑of‑life circumstances facilities may not bar in‑person visits from permitted family members unless the patient has expressly told staff they do not want that person to visit. The section emphasizes liberal visitation but balances it by allowing denial of entry for violent or potentially violent individuals and by recognizing hospitals’ obligation to maintain safety.
PPE and testing parity and resource provision
This paragraph allows facilities to require visitors to comply with PPE and testing protocols, provided those requirements are no greater than those for facility staff, and it requires the facility to provide PPE/testing to visitors to the extent state or local entities have made such resources readily available to the facility. The provision ties visitor protections to the facility’s access to public supplies and allows visitors to use equivalent private supplies.
Reasonable restrictions and infant exception
Subdivision (c) affirms that facilities can impose reasonable restrictions on visitation — hours, visitor age, supervision of minors, and number of visitors — and includes a specific rule that infants under one year of age are not counted against any visitor‑number cap. The clause preserves normal operational controls but requires that limits be reasonable and applied consistent with the rest of the statute.
Definitions and liability carve‑out
Subdivision (d) references Family Code Section 297 for the definition of domestic partner, avoiding ambiguity about who qualifies. Subdivision (e) states that the section does not create new civil or criminal liability for a facility that complies with the statute’s requirements, which narrows the litigation stakes but leaves open traditional tort claims and enforcement questions.
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
- Patients at end of life — AB 92 guarantees a presumption of in‑person family presence unless the patient objects, strengthening patient‑centered care in critical moments.
- Named family members (spouses, domestic partners, children, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, and specific in‑law relationships) — they gain a statutory right to visit that is harder for facilities to override without individualized justification.
- Families with infants under one year — such infants won’t count against facility caps, facilitating parental presence with newborns or very young relatives.
- Patient advocates and bereavement counselors — clearer statutory rights streamline advocacy and reduce ad hoc disputes about access during end‑of‑life care.
Who Bears the Cost
- Hospitals and long‑term care facilities — administrators must create, document, and operate alternate visitation protocols, screen and potentially provide PPE/testing, and adjudicate individualized exclusion decisions, increasing operational and compliance workload.
- Facility infection control teams and staff — they will absorb added screening duties, manage visitor PPE/testing logistics, and enforce parity between visitor and staff protective measures, which may divert time from clinical duties.
- Supply chains and procurement — if state/local supplied PPE/testing is limited, facilities may face pressure to source and distribute visitor PPE, incurring procurement and distribution costs.
- Risk managers and legal departments — even with the liability carve‑out, institutions must manage the legal risk of exclusions, potential negligence claims, and disputes where ‘reasonable’ determinations are contested.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is straightforward: AB 92 elevates patient and family presence—especially at the end of life—against a facility’s legitimate duty to protect health, safety, and uninterrupted operations; the bill solves one problem (overly broad visitation bans) but transfers hard judgment calls about safety, resource allocation, and visitor exclusions to facility administrators without supplying sharp statutory standards or enforcement mechanisms.
AB 92 pushes administrators into judgment calls the statute does not fully define. Key terms — notably what constitutes a ‘reasonable determination’ that a visitor would endanger health or ‘significantly disrupt’ operations, and what qualifies as an ‘end‑of‑life’ situation — are left undefined, leaving room for inconsistent application across facilities.
That vagueness protects flexibility but increases the risk of uneven enforcement, complaints, and litigation over whether a particular exclusion met the statute’s standard.
The PPE/testing provision ties visitor access to public supply availability: facilities must provide PPE/testing to visitors only to the extent those resources have been made readily available to the facility by state or local entities. That limits cost exposure in some cases but raises practical questions when public supplies are restricted.
Facilities will need triage policies for allocating scarce PPE between staff and visitors, and the statute explicitly cautions against hindering emergency supplies for staff — a balance that may be hard to operationalize during surges. Finally, the statute names family relationships but excludes non‑relative chosen family and many other caregivers; that choice resolves some disputes but may create equity concerns for patients whose primary support is not among the listed relations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.