SB 386 sets ground rules for how California health care service plans and their contracted payment vendors offer payment methods to dental providers. The bill focuses on provider choice and transparency: plans must have a non‑fee payment default and cannot switch a provider to a feeed payment method without the provider’s signed, affirmative consent.
The measure changes how payment information is delivered, what vendors must disclose, and how providers can change payment methods. For practices and plan compliance teams, the bill reshapes onboarding, vendor contracts, and reconciliation processes; for payment vendors it raises new disclosure and consent mechanics to implement.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates a non‑fee‑based default payment option and requires plans or their contracted vendors to obtain a dental provider’s signed affirmative consent before using any payment method that charges the provider a fee to access funds. Plans must also associate each payment with the relevant claims and claim details and notify providers about vendor fee structures and any profit‑sharing or governance ties between vendor and plan.
Who It Affects
Dental providers licensed under Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the Business and Professions Code, California regulated health care service plans, and third‑party contracted vendors that facilitate payments. Practice managers, billing teams, and plan vendor‑management units will need to change enrollment and payment‑rail processes.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the default balance toward fee‑free payment rails and forces transparency around processor fees and vendor‑plan relationships, which can change cash flows for dental practices and alter the economics for payment processors that rely on provider fees.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 386 builds a small but concrete regulatory framework around how plans and third‑party payment vendors deliver money to dental providers. It defines a ‘fee‑based payment’ as any payment requiring the provider to pay a fee to access plan funds, and it defines ‘affirmative consent’ as a signed opt‑in or opt‑out decision.
The statute recognizes electronic signatures and allows email as a means of providing that signature, but it explicitly clarifies that simply accessing funds is not the same as consenting to charged payment methods.
Operationally, plans must maintain a non‑fee‑based payment method as the default and must attach claims and claim detail information to payments so providers can reconcile what was paid and why. If a provider does choose a fee‑based method, the plan or contracted vendor must provide a package of information at the time of opt‑in: the fees the provider will pay, the alternative (non‑fee) methods available, instructions for how to opt out, and a reminder that the provider may opt out at any time.
The statute also requires plans to disclose if a contracted vendor shares profit, fee arrangements, or board composition with the plan — a directed transparency requirement aimed at potential conflicts of interest.Choice under the law operates at the practice level: a single affirmative consent decision applies to a provider’s entire practice and to every product or service the plan covers under the provider’s contract. Providers can change their election at any time by giving a new signed instruction; that choice remains in place until they submit another instruction.
The measure contains a narrow carve‑out for cases where a plan’s direct contract already allows the provider to select payment methods, and it specifies that the law becomes operative April 1, 2026 and applies to contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after that date.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires plans to use a non‑fee‑based payment method as the default and to associate each payment with the claims and claim details that generated it.
Fee‑based payment options may be used only after the dental provider gives affirmative consent in the form of a signature; email and recognized electronic/digital signatures are explicitly allowed and simply accessing funds does not count as consent.
A provider’s consent decision applies to the provider’s entire practice and to all products or services covered by the plan under the provider’s contract.
At opt‑in the plan or contracted vendor must disclose the fees, alternative non‑fee methods, instructions for opting out, and whether the vendor shares profit, fee arrangements, or board composition with the plan.
The section becomes operative April 1, 2026 and applies to health care service plan contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after that date; it does not apply where a direct contract already gives providers the choice of payment methods.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Key definitions: affirmative consent, fee‑based payment, and parties
This subsection supplies the statutory vocabulary the rest of the bill relies on. Most consequential are the definitions of 'affirmative consent' (a signed opt‑in/opt‑out that can be electronic or via email) and 'fee‑based payment' (any payment that requires the provider to incur a fee to access plan funds). The definitions block the common vendor argument that passive acceptance of funds equates to consent and extend traditional signature law to allow modern e‑signing.
Non‑fee default and claims association requirement
This section forces plans to maintain a non‑fee payment option as the default for dental providers and to include claims and claim details with each payment. Practically, plans must ensure their payment rails can deliver itemized remittance or equivalent claim data alongside or linked to payments so providers can reconcile payments without extra administrative friction.
Consent mechanics and disclosure obligations for feeed methods
Plans and contracted vendors may only start fee‑based payment methods after obtaining a provider’s affirmative consent. They must give the provider notice of fees, alternative (non‑fee) payment options, how to opt out, and that the provider may opt out anytime. The section also requires notice if a contracted vendor shares profit, fee arrangements, or board composition with the plan — a statutory push for conflict‑of‑interest disclosure between processor and payer.
Opt‑out, permanence, and scope of a consent decision
A provider may rescind a fee‑based election at any time by giving a new signed instruction; the provider’s current choice stays effective until changed. Importantly, the statute applies the decision practice‑wide and across all plan‑covered products and services, preventing per‑provider or per‑service fragmentation of payment elections within a practice unless the contract arrangement explicitly permits it.
Carve‑outs, relationship to existing law, and effective date
The statute declines to disturb direct contracts that already allow providers to choose payment methods, and it states that it does not alter the scope of Section 1367. The operative date is April 1, 2026, and the rule applies to contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after that date — giving plans and vendors a transition window for contract and system changes.
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
- Independent dental providers and small practices — The non‑fee default and mandatory fee disclosure reduce surprise deductions from payments and make cash‑flow costs visible during vendor selection.
- Practice billing and finance teams — Receiving claims and claim details with payments simplifies reconciliation, reduces manual matching, and can lower administrative error rates.
- Dental providers negotiating contracts — The practice‑wide election and explicit consent mechanics strengthen bargaining positions by requiring explicit vendor disclosures and documented provider approval before fees start.
Who Bears the Cost
- Health care service plans — Must adapt vendor contracts, payment rails, and provider enrollment processes to support non‑fee default payments, deliver claim‑level detail, and process signed consents.
- Contracted payment vendors that charge providers — Face new disclosure obligations and possible loss of business if providers prefer non‑fee rails; may need engineering work to support consent tracking and remittance detail.
- Group practices with mixed compensation models — Could lose flexibility if the practice‑wide consent rule prevents tailoring payment methods to individual clinicians or services, forcing administrative reorganization or contract renegotiation.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between protecting providers from surprise access fees and preserving flexible, market‑driven payment solutions: the bill increases transparency and provider control at the cost of added administrative friction for plans and vendors, and it risks creating loopholes via direct‑contract carve‑outs and vague disclosure standards that could blunt its impact.
The statute packs several practical ambiguities and implementation trade‑offs. 'Affirmative consent' is defined as a signature and permits email and electronic signatures, but the law does not prescribe a standardized consent recordkeeping format, retention period, or audit trail — leaving plans and vendors to set operational standards or await regulatory guidance. The requirement that plans disclose profit‑sharing, fee arrangements, or board composition with a contracted vendor is meaningful in principle, but the statute does not set materiality thresholds or a disclosure format; a plan could satisfy the disclosure obligation with minimal detail unless regulators specify expectations.
Scope and exemptions create edge cases. Applying a single consent decision across an entire practice simplifies administration but can create friction for multi‑site or multi‑provider groups that want different processors for different clinicians or service lines.
The carve‑out for direct contracts that permit provider choice could be broad in practice — sophisticated providers might negotiate contract language that effectively exempts many arrangements. The bill also omits enforcement and penalty mechanics: it prescribes duties but leaves enforcement pathways to existing law or regulators, which could delay practical compliance pressure while plans adjust systems.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.