SB 1309 adds parallel mandates to the Health and Safety Code and Insurance Code requiring health care service plan contracts and health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, to cover follow‑up screening or diagnostic services for lung cancer when recommended by a treating provider. The statute lists examples (diagnostic CT, PET/CT, tissue sampling, biopsy, bronchoscopy, pathology, surgical consultation) and forbids any copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or other cost‑sharing for those follow‑up services.
This shifts the immediate financial burden for post‑screening diagnostics from patients to carriers and plans, creates implementation tasks for plan documentation and claims processing, and raises enforcement stakes because Knox‑Keene violations can carry criminal penalties for willful breaches by health care service plans. The law applies to California‑regulated plans and insurers and does not explicitly address federal ERISA‑governed self‑insured employer plans or Medicare program rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 1309 requires California‑regulated health plans and insurers to cover follow‑up lung cancer diagnostic services recommended by a provider and explicitly bars all forms of patient cost‑sharing for that coverage. The statute defines follow‑up services with an illustrative list including diagnostic CT, PET/CT, biopsies, bronchoscopy, pathology, and surgical consultation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects health care service plans regulated by the Department of Managed Health Care and insurance carriers regulated by the Department of Insurance—i.e., fully insured individual and group plans sold in California. It does not alter federal ERISA preemption; self‑insured employer plans administered under ERISA are likely unchanged.
Why It Matters
Eliminating out‑of‑pocket costs for diagnostic follow‑up removes a common barrier to timely cancer diagnosis and could increase use of diagnostic services. Carriers, employers that buy fully insured coverage, and regulators will need to update plan documents, claims systems, and utilization management protocols to implement the change.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1309 creates two mirror provisions—one added to the Health and Safety Code for health care service plans and one to the Insurance Code for insurers—so California‑regulated plans must pay for follow‑up diagnostic services for lung cancer when a clinician recommends them after an abnormal or indeterminate screening result. The bill’s effective trigger is transactional: the requirement applies to contracts or policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027, which means plan sponsors and carriers will phase the mandate in as members move onto new or renewed coverage.
The statute confines coverage to ‘‘followup screening or diagnostic services for lung cancer’’ and supplies a non‑exclusive list of services—diagnostic computed tomography (CT), PET/CT, tissue sampling, biopsy, bronchoscopy, pathology, and surgical consultation. Coverage is conditioned on a health care provider’s recommendation within the scope of their professional practice, signaling that provider orders or clinical determinations will govern access rather than an automatic entitlement following any screening test.Crucially, the bill forbids any form of patient cost‑sharing for those follow‑up services: no copays, coinsurance, deductibles, or ‘‘other form[s] of cost sharing.’’ The text does not limit insurers’ ability to employ utilization management (for example, prior authorization) or to define medical necessity; it also does not address provider network adequacy, coding guidance, or how to treat novel diagnostic technologies beyond the listed examples.
Implementation will therefore depend on carriers’ operational changes—plan language amendments, claims processing rules, provider communication—and on how regulators interpret the provider‑recommendation standard.Finally, because the Knox‑Keene Act already makes willful violations of its provisions a crime, applying this new mandate in the Health and Safety Code carries criminal enforcement risk for health care service plans. The bill also includes a statutory statement that the state will not reimburse local agencies for costs tied to the act on the ground that any local costs arise from criminal‑law changes; that affects how local entities and courts handle compliance‑related resource questions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The mandate applies only to contracts or policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2027—existing coverage remains governed by current documents until renewal or amendment.
The statute prohibits all patient cost‑sharing for covered follow‑up lung cancer diagnostics: no copayment, coinsurance, deductible, or other cost‑sharing is allowed.
The law defines ‘‘followup screening or diagnostic services for lung cancer’’ with an illustrative list: diagnostic CT, PET/CT, tissue sampling, biopsy, bronchoscopy, pathology, and surgical consultation.
SB 1309 creates parallel requirements: Section 1367.58 for Health & Safety Code (health care service plans) and Section 10123.78 for the Insurance Code (health insurers), so both DMHC‑ and DOI‑regulated entities must comply.
Because Knox‑Keene violations can be charged as a crime, willful noncompliance by a health care service plan could carry criminal penalties; the bill also declares no state reimbursement for local costs tied to the change.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Mandate for DMHC‑regulated health care service plans
This section obligates health care service plan contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after Jan 1, 2027 to cover provider‑recommended follow‑up lung cancer diagnostic services and forbids any patient cost‑sharing for that coverage. Practically, managed care plans regulated under Knox‑Keene must amend evidence of coverage and provider contracts, alter claims adjudication logic to zero out member cost sharing for specified codes, and create verification processes to honor provider recommendations while maintaining utilization controls.
Mandate for DOI‑regulated health insurers
This mirror provision requires health insurance policies issued, amended, or renewed on or after Jan 1, 2027 to provide the same no‑cost coverage for follow‑up lung cancer diagnostics. Carriers writing fully insured individual and group policies in California will need to update policy forms, adjust premium assumptions, and coordinate with broker and employer clients on implementation timing. The statute does not enumerate enforcement mechanisms unique to insurers beyond existing regulatory authority.
Fiscal language and criminal‑cost carve‑out
Section 3 declares that no state reimbursement to local agencies is required under the California Constitution because any local costs arise from creating or changing a crime or infraction. The provision flags the legislative view that enforcement consequences flow from criminalization under Knox‑Keene, which has implications for local prosecutors, courts, and agencies that might face compliance‑related caseloads but will not receive a state reimbursement under Article XIII B.
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 with abnormal or indeterminate lung screening results in California‑regulated plans — they face no out‑of‑pocket costs for key diagnostic follow‑up services, reducing a common barrier to timely diagnosis.
- Specialists who perform diagnostics (radiologists, pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists) — fewer billing disputes and improved rates of completed follow‑up may streamline care and reduce administrative friction in collecting patient cost‑sharing.
- Public health and screening programs — higher follow‑up completion rates improve the yield of screening initiatives and may strengthen early detection metrics used by state and local programs.
- Employers that purchase fully insured coverage — while not direct beneficiaries of reduced utilization, employers may see improved employee health outcomes and potentially lower long‑term disability or treatment costs if earlier diagnosis reduces advanced‑disease burden.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health insurers and managed care plans regulated by DOI and DMHC — they must absorb the costs of follow‑up diagnostics and implement operational changes (plan amendments, claims processing, provider communications).
- Employers purchasing fully insured group plans — carriers may pass higher claim costs into premiums, so employers paying the premium could face increased benefit costs over time.
- State regulators (DMHC and DOI) — implementing guidance, reviewing amended forms, and resolving coverage disputes will increase regulatory workload without dedicated funding tied to the bill.
- Smaller or specialized carriers — proportional cost impacts may be larger for smaller risk pools and new market entrants, potentially affecting market competition or plan offerings.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill advances timely patient access by removing financial barriers to necessary diagnostic follow‑up, but doing so shifts costs and operational burdens onto insurers and regulated plans (and indirectly onto employers via premiums), while leaving federal ERISA‑governed plans outside its reach—producing practical inequities and forcing regulators and carriers to reconcile clinical judgment, utilization management, and enforcement risk without detailed implementation standards.
SB 1309 eliminates cost‑sharing for an important set of diagnostic services but leaves several consequential implementation questions unaddressed. The statute ties coverage to a provider’s recommendation but does not define evidentiary standards for that recommendation, how plans must document it, or how disputes over whether a recommendation falls within a provider’s scope of practice will be resolved.
Carriers may still use prior authorization, medical necessity review, or network‑based restrictions to limit access, and the bill does not constrain those utilization management tools.
The law’s reach is limited to California‑regulated plans and policies, which means many people covered by self‑insured employer plans governed by ERISA may not receive the same no‑cost follow‑up. That creates an uneven landscape where identical clinical situations result in different patient financial exposure depending on plan type.
Separately, adding a new coverage mandate that can trigger criminal penalties for willful Knox‑Keene breaches raises enforcement intensity: regulators and plans will need to weigh aggressive enforcement and prosecution against the administrative reality that coverage disputes are normally resolved through civil regulatory action. Finally, the bill lists diagnostic examples but does not set coding or billing guidance, which will force carriers, providers, and regulators into negotiation over covered CPT/HCPCS codes and claims adjudication rules—an implementation challenge with near‑term cash‑flow consequences for providers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.