SB 297 (Valley Fever Screening and Prevention Act of 2025) directs the State Department of Public Health to identify high-incidence regions for coccidioidomycosis (valley fever), provide data and standardized screening protocols to local health departments, and develop training materials for clinicians. It requires primary-care settings in those regions to offer adult patients valley fever screening beginning in 2028, and it conditions follow-up diagnostic testing and management on screening results.
To ensure access, the bill forces most health plans and insurers to cover valley fever screening and tests without cost sharing for people connected to high-incidence regions (coverage rules take effect for new or renewed policies and contracts in mid‑2027), and it adds screening tests to Medi‑Cal benefits subject to federal approval. The measure also mandates outreach and case reporting by local health departments and directs periodic program evaluations to the Legislature.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill builds a three-part program: (1) statewide surveillance to identify and update a list of high-incidence regions; (2) provider-facing requirements to offer valley fever screening in primary-care encounters in those regions and to follow up positive screens with diagnostic testing and guideline-based care; and (3) insurance mandates requiring coverage of screening and diagnostic tests without patient cost sharing for affected populations.
Who It Affects
State and local public health agencies (data analysis, training, outreach, reporting), primary-care clinics and clinicians practicing in identified high-incidence regions, commercial health plans and insurers (coverage and no-cost-sharing obligations), and Medi‑Cal beneficiaries pending federal approvals.
Why It Matters
SB 297 shifts valley fever detection upstream into routine primary care in high-risk areas and ties public-health surveillance to payer obligations, which could materially increase early diagnosis and treatment but will also redistribute costs and operational responsibilities across public health agencies, clinicians, and payers.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 297 instructs the State Department of Public Health (CDPH) to use public-health surveillance data, and expert consultation where feasible, to identify regions with elevated valley fever incidence and to update that list annually. CDPH must publish the inaugural high-incidence list and supply local health departments in those areas with detailed infection data, standardized screening protocols aligned with current national clinical practice recommendations, and evidence-based training materials on screening, detection, diagnosis, and treatment.
Local health departments in designated high-incidence areas must conduct outreach to clinicians and the public about valley fever risks, symptoms, and prevention, and they must annually report confirmed cases back to CDPH. CDPH will evaluate the screening and prevention program on a fixed schedule (first evaluation due January 1, 2030, then every two years) and report findings to the Legislature under standard Government Code reporting rules.Commencing January 1, 2028, the bill requires that adult patients receiving primary-care services in facilities located within high-incidence regions be offered valley fever screening consistent with the latest national clinical practice recommendations, to the extent those services are covered by the patient's insurance.
The statute defines “valley fever screening” as assessing clinical presentation to determine whether diagnostic testing should be considered and defines “valley fever screening test” to include laboratory tests that detect current or past Coccidioides infection. If a screen suggests testing, providers must offer diagnostic testing; a positive diagnostic result triggers the duty to offer guideline-based management or referral.
The bill requires that offers be culturally and linguistically appropriate.The measure places explicit limits on enforcement against clinicians: a provider who, in good faith professional judgment, determines screening or testing is not appropriate is protected from disciplinary action and from civil or criminal liability for that decision. For payers, SB 297 requires health care service plans and health insurance policies issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after June 1, 2027, to cover valley fever screening and tests in high-incidence regions without deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost sharing; high deductible health plan federal rules create a narrow exception.
The bill also adds valley fever screening tests as a Medi‑Cal benefit effective June 1, 2027, limited to the extent federal approvals and funding permit.
The Five Things You Need to Know
CDPH must publish its first list of high‑incidence valley fever regions by March 1, 2027, and may revise identification criteria over time.
Providers must begin offering valley fever screening to adult primary‑care patients in designated regions on January 1, 2028.
Health plans and insurers must cover screenings and tests without cost sharing for policies or contracts issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after June 1, 2027; HDHPs remain subject to applicable federal rules.
Local health departments in high‑incidence areas must perform outreach and report the number of confirmed valley fever cases to CDPH annually.
CDPH must evaluate the program and report to the Legislature beginning January 1, 2030, and every two years thereafter; Medi‑Cal coverage is effective June 1, 2027 only if federal approvals and funding are available.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Provider duty to offer screening, diagnostic follow-up, and protections
This section creates the on-the-ground clinical requirement: adult patients receiving primary care in high‑incidence regions must be offered valley fever screening per current national clinical practice recommendations, except in specified situations (life‑threatening emergency, prior screening unless reoffering is appropriate, lack of consent capacity, or ED care). If screening suggests testing, diagnostic tests must be offered; positive tests require offering management or referral aligned with guidelines. The section requires culturally and linguistically appropriate offers and includes a broad shield protecting providers from licensure discipline and civil/criminal liability when they reasonably decline screening or testing based on professional judgment.
No cost sharing for plan-covered valley fever screening/tests
SB 297 amends health care service plan obligations so that contracts issued or renewed on or after June 1, 2027 must cover valley fever screening and related tests for people in high‑incidence regions without deductible, coinsurance, copayment, or other cost sharing. The statute carves out compliance with federal law for high deductible health plans per IRC §223, meaning plans that must maintain HDHP status may impose deductibles when federal rules require it.
Surveillance, local outreach, reporting, and program evaluation
These provisions require CDPH to annually analyze surveillance data to identify high‑incidence regions and to supply local health departments with infection data, screening protocols, and training materials. Local health departments must conduct outreach to clinicians and the public and report confirmed case counts to CDPH annually. CDPH must evaluate program effectiveness and report to the Legislature by January 1, 2030 and biennially thereafter, with statutory cross‑references governing report submission.
No cost sharing for health insurance policies
Mirroring the health plan requirement, this Insurance Code section mandates that most commercial insurance policies issued, amended, delivered, or renewed on or after June 1, 2027 cover valley fever screening/tests in high‑incidence areas without cost sharing. It repeats the same HDHP federal‑law caveat to avoid conflict with tax‑qualified HDHP rules.
Medi‑Cal coverage conditional on federal approval
This section adds screening tests as a Medi‑Cal benefit effective June 1, 2027 but ties implementation to necessary federal approvals and availability of federal financial participation. The conditional language recognizes federal-state financing constraints and means Medi‑Cal coverage will not automatically take effect without CMS signoff and funding.
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
- Residents of high‑incidence regions (adults receiving primary care): They gain routine offers of valley fever screening and access to diagnostic testing and guideline‑based follow-up, which should increase early detection and treatment.
- Medi‑Cal enrollees in designated areas: The bill prioritizes coverage of screening tests under Medi‑Cal (subject to federal approval), reducing out‑of‑pocket barriers for low‑income Californians if federal participation is secured.
- Public health practitioners and clinicians: CDPH‑provided data, standardized protocols, and training materials reduce local variability in recognition and management of valley fever and create a shared, evidence‑based framework for care.
- Patients who travel to or work/school in high‑incidence areas: The coverage language extends to covered individuals who live, work, attend school, or recently visited a high‑incidence region, potentially expanding protections to transient populations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial health plans and insurers: Must absorb the cost of no‑cost‑sharing screening and testing for covered individuals in affected regions for policies/contracts beginning June 1, 2027, shifting utilization costs onto payers.
- Local health departments: Required to perform outreach, reporting, and coordination using the CDPH data and protocols—duties that constitute a state‑mandated local program and may require additional staffing or funding.
- State Department of Public Health: Charged with annual surveillance, publishing lists, distributing protocols and training, and conducting biennial program evaluations, increasing its operational responsibilities and data‑analysis workload.
- Primary‑care clinics and health facilities: Will incur operational costs for offering screenings (time, documentation, possible increased diagnostic referrals) even where payers cover tests, and must implement culturally and linguistically appropriate processes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill wrestles with the trade‑off between aggressive, population‑level early detection of valley fever and the practical burdens of mandating screening and coverage: it advances public‑health goals by directing surveillance, outreach, and no‑cost testing for affected communities, but it shifts costs and operational duties to payers, local agencies, and clinicians while simultaneously shielding clinicians from liability—creating enforcement, funding, and standard‑of‑care tensions that the implementing agencies will need to resolve.
SB 297 ties epidemiologic surveillance to clinical practice and payer obligations, but the bill leaves several operational questions unanswered. The statute authorizes CDPH to identify and revise criteria for high‑incidence regions, yet it provides no numeric threshold or clear methodology in the text; that creates uncertainty for payers and providers about who is subject to the requirements until CDPH issues its list.
The coverage mandates hinge on administrative dates (June 1, 2027 for plans/policies; January 1, 2028 for clinical offers), while Medi‑Cal expansion remains conditional on federal approval—creating a staggered, potentially confusing timetable for implementation across stakeholders.
The provider liability shield is broad: clinicians who decline screening or testing “based upon their professional judgment” are protected from discipline and civil/criminal liability. That protects clinicians from overreach but also raises enforcement questions—if non‑screening becomes common practice in an identified high‑incidence area, the shield may blunt incentives to follow the statute in good faith.
The bill also requires CDPH to share “detailed infection data” with local health departments; that improves local situational awareness but elevates data‑management and privacy responsibilities, and the bill is silent on standards for data de‑identification or on sharing with non‑public‑health entities.
Finally, the HDHP federal exemption and the Medi‑Cal federal‑approval caveat create coverage gaps. Federal tax code and CMS rules will determine whether some screenings remain subject to deductibles or whether Medi‑Cal can actually expand benefits—placing material implementation risk outside state control.
These interactions between state mandates and federal constraints are central to how much access ultimately changes for patients in practice.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.