SB 62 revises California’s definition of essential health benefits (EHB) for individual and small-group health plans by anchoring the state benchmark to the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO as offered in early 2014 and folding in longstanding state-mandated benefits enacted before 2012. The measure also conditions a second wave of mandated additions on federal approval of a new state benchmark: if the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services approves California’s 2025 submission, then beginning January 1, 2027 the state benchmark must include a specified package of infertility treatments, a list of durable medical equipment (DME), and expanded hearing coverage.
The bill matters because it hardens a California-specific EHB baseline across plans offered inside and outside the exchange, strengthens parity and habilitative coverage rules, and narrows plan design flexibility (for example by limiting substitutions). Those moves will change benefit design, provider demand, and actuarial assumptions for carriers and small employers that offer covered plans in California.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 62 requires individual and small-group health care service plan contracts to provide essential health benefits consistent with the Affordable Care Act and with a California benchmark based on the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO as offered in Q1 2014. If HHS approves a new California benchmark submitted in 2025, the bill mandates adding a detailed package of infertility services, specific durable medical equipment, and expanded hearing benefits effective January 1, 2027.
Who It Affects
The rule applies to individual and small-group health plan contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2017 — whether sold on the exchange or off it. Primary affected parties include managed care plans subject to the Knox-Keene framework, small employers sponsoring group coverage, and the vendors and clinicians who deliver fertility, DME, audiology, vision, and pediatric oral services.
Why It Matters
By codifying a California benchmark and conditioning additional benefits on a federally approved benchmark, the state locks in a broader set of mandated services that will influence premiums, network buildout, and claims projections. Regulators and insurers will need to change plan design, formulary management, and provider networks to comply while keeping an eye on cost and access trade-offs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 62 makes the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO (the 2014 plan) the operative reference for what counts as essential health benefits in California individual and small-group plans, and it explicitly imports the universe of pre-2012 California statutory mandates that the Kaiser plan covered. That list is long and specific: it pulls in requirements such as hospice care, prosthetics for laryngectomy, coverage for certain cancer screenings and treatments, organ transplants for HIV, autism and behavioral health treatment mandates, and other statutes enumerated in the bill.
Where there is a mismatch between the Kaiser plan description and the prior statutes, the statute controls unless the bill specifies otherwise.
The bill applies federal mental health parity law to contracts subject to the section and requires habilitative services to be covered on the same terms and conditions as rehabilitative services; importantly, limits on habilitative and rehabilitative services must not be combined. Treatment limitations generally cannot be more restrictive than the limits imposed by the corresponding plans identified in the bill.
SB 62 forbids plans from substituting required benefits for others unless permitted by federal law; the only explicit substitution carve-out allows a plan to substitute its prescription drug formulary for the benchmark formulary to the extent federal rules permit and certain statutory cross-references are satisfied.SB 62 adds carve-outs and guardrails: home health services in the named Kaiser plan are expressly deemed not to conflict with state law; certain contract types are excluded (specialized plans, Medicare supplement plans, and grandfathered plans); and the statute repeatedly clarifies that California will not be obligated to defray the costs of benefits that federal law would otherwise require the state to pay. For implementation, the department may issue compliance guidance and may adopt regulations; the department must consult with the Department of Insurance in both guidance and rulemaking.
The bill also includes definitions for habilitative services, health benefits, PPACA, and small group plans to reduce ambiguity about scope.
The Five Things You Need to Know
If HHS approves California’s new benchmark submission, then starting January 1, 2027 the benchmark must include a specific infertility package that mandates, among other items, three attempts to retrieve gametes, three attempts to create embryos, three rounds of pretransfer testing, cryopreservation of gametes and embryos, two years’ embryo storage (with unlimited gamete storage), unlimited embryo transfers, two vials of donor sperm, ten donor eggs, surrogacy coverage for these services, and health testing of the surrogate for each attempted round.
The benchmark additions include a defined list of durable medical equipment: mobility devices (including walkers, manual and power wheelchairs, and scooters), augmented communication devices (speech-generating devices, communication boards, and related apps), continuous positive airway pressure machines, portable oxygen, and hospital beds.
The bill requires hearing coverage additions that include an annual hearing exam and one hearing aid per ear every three years.
For pediatric care, the bill specifies that pediatric vision benefits must match the vision plan with the largest national enrollment under the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program as of Q1 2014, and pediatric oral benefits must match the Medi‑Cal pediatric dental benefit as of 2014 — including medically necessary orthodontic care provided per the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009; both pediatric packages are explicitly additive to existing plan benefits.
The department may issue guidance on compliance with this section on or before January 1, 2027 that is not subject to California’s Administrative Procedure Act; the department may still promulgate APA‑governed regulations and is required to consult the Department of Insurance when doing so.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
California benchmark and baseline EHB rule
This provision names the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Small Group HMO (Q1 2014 offering) as the state benchmark for EHB and directs that individual and small-group contracts issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2017 include EHB at a minimum consistent with PPACA and this section. Practically, carriers must align covered benefits and treatment limits to that benchmark and the statute's cross-references, or follow the controlling statutory mandates when conflicts appear.
Roll-in of pre‑2012 California statutory mandates
The bill explicitly folds a long list of California statutes enacted before December 31, 2011 into the EHB baseline — examples include hospice care, cancer screenings, prosthetics for laryngectomy, autism-related behavioral health treatment, transplant coverage for HIV patients, and sterility procedures. By doing so the bill prevents plans from escaping older state mandates via benchmarking choices; where the benchmark and prior statutes differ, the statute controls (subject to certain exceptions defined elsewhere).
Parity and habilitative coverage rules
The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act applies to contracts covered by this section, and the bill requires compliance with federal parity rules. The statute also treats habilitative services on the same terms as rehabilitative services and instructs that limits on habilitative and rehabilitative services not be combined — a provision that affects benefit caps, utilization review, and plan comparisons.
Contingent January 1, 2027 benchmark additions
This clause conditions a package of new mandatory benefits on HHS approval of a new California benchmark submitted in 2025. If approved, the benchmark must include the infertility services package, the enumerated durable medical equipment, and expanded hearing benefits beginning January 1, 2027. The conditional nature ties state changes to federal acceptance of the benchmark submission and creates a delayed implementation timetable dependent on federal action.
Treatment limits, substitution rules, and marketing prohibition
The bill caps treatment limitations so they cannot be more restrictive than the corresponding limits in the identified plans, restricts benefit substitutions (plans may not swap required benefits for other services just because they are actuarially equivalent), and allows only a narrow substitution for a plan’s own prescription drug formulary when federal law permits. It also bans marketing or representing a product as EHB‑compliant unless it meets all the requirements in this section — an enforcement lever against misrepresentation.
Guidance, regulations, and interagency consultation
The department may issue compliance guidance on or before January 1, 2027 and may promulgate regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act; the department must consult with the Department of Insurance in both guidance and rulemaking. The bill’s language creates two implementation tracks: non‑APA guidance for quicker direction and APA rulemaking for binding regulatory standards, both informed by DOI expertise.
Exemptions and fiscal clarifications
The statute lists exemptions — specialized health care service plans, Medicare supplement plans, and grandfathered plans — and repeatedly clarifies that the section does not obligate the state to pay for benefits that federal law would otherwise require the state to defray. It also stipulates that changes resulting from statutes enacted after December 31, 2011 need not be covered under this section, limiting retroactivity and scope of required plan updates.
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
- People seeking infertility care in California — the bill, if the federal benchmark is approved, mandates a comprehensive fertility package that expands covered procedures, storage, donor resources, and surrogacy-related services, reducing out‑of‑pocket exposure for recipients of those services.
- Individuals who require durable medical equipment and augmentative communication — by mandating a set list of DME (mobility devices, AAC devices, CPAPs, portable oxygen, hospital beds), the bill improves coverage certainty and may reduce access barriers for people with mobility, respiratory, or communication needs.
- People with hearing loss — the required annual hearing exam and replacement hearing aids (one per ear every three years) increase routine access to audiology services and device replacement, particularly for those previously excluded by narrow EHB benchmarks.
- Children who need vision and oral health services — specifying pediatric vision benefits aligned with the largest FEDVIP vision plan and Medi‑Cal’s 2014 dental package (including medically necessary orthodontia) expands baseline pediatric coverage and helps reduce gaps between private plans and public programs.
- Behavioral health patients — applying federal parity law and specifically importing California’s pre‑2012 behavioral health mandates (including autism/behavioral health treatment) strengthens parity enforcement and coverage scope for mental health and substance use disorder services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Individual and small‑group health plans subject to Knox‑Keene regulation — carriers must expand covered benefits, adjust formularies, and update utilization management and provider networks, increasing administrative costs and expected claims.
- Small employers sponsoring group coverage — expanded mandatory benefits can translate into higher premiums or changed contribution requirements for employers who purchase coverage for employees under small‑group plans.
- Health plans’ provider networks and DME suppliers — plans will need to contract with additional fertility providers, DME vendors, audiologists, and pediatric specialists, imposing transaction and credentialing costs and potentially driving network rate negotiations.
- Regulators and state agencies — the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of Insurance will need to coordinate guidance, rulemaking, and enforcement; the APA exemption for guidance raises expectations for rapid implementation but could strain staff and analytical capacity.
- Consumers indirectly through premiums or benefit designs — by forbidding broad substitutions and requiring additive pediatric and habilitative coverage, the bill constrains cost‑offset strategies, which may be reflected in higher premiums or narrower provider networks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 62 creates is between expanding a comprehensive set of health benefits to ensure access (particularly for fertility, DME, pediatric vision/oral, and behavioral health) and preserving plan design flexibility to control costs; stronger mandates increase coverage but shift cost and operational burdens to carriers, employers, and regulators with no easy way to reconcile full access with affordability.
SB 62 balances access expansion against implementation complexity and cost allocation, but it leaves several operational and fiscal questions unresolved. First, the benchmark expansion is contingent on HHS approval of a 2025 state submission; if HHS declines or conditions approval, the January 1, 2027 additions may not occur as drafted, leaving stakeholders exposed to federal timing and interpretation.
Second, the bill forbids substitutions of required benefits, which limits carriers’ ability to redesign offerings to manage cost — yet it allows limited formulary substitution for prescription drugs only where federal rules permit. That creates a narrow corridor for actuarial flexibility and raises the risk that carriers will respond by adjusting cost‑sharing, narrowing networks, or seeking rate increases instead of redesigning benefits.
Third, several terms and practical issues are lightly defined. ‘‘Surrogacy coverage’’ and the enumerated fertility procedures are geographically and clinically specific but do not address limits on medical necessity review, prior authorization protocols, or provider qualifications, which matters for both access and fraud control. The APA exemption for guidance expedites implementation but reduces procedural transparency; the bill mitigates this by preserving APA rulemaking, yet regulators must balance speed with stakeholder input.
Finally, while the statute disclaims any obligation for the state to defray costs, it does not prevent downstream fiscal pressures on Medi‑Cal or on employer‑sponsored plans that could affect affordability for consumers.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.