SB 969 tasks the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) with creating the administrative framework to make remote delivery of certain regional center services a standing option. The bill directs DDS to identify which services may be delivered remotely, establish the billing mechanics, and publish guidance for regional centers and providers; regional centers must then notify consumers about the optional remote delivery choice.
The measure formalizes pandemic-era remote service practices into statute rather than leaving them to temporary departmental directives. That shift has operational consequences: it creates new billing code work, changes authorization and documentation expectations, and embeds a process for families and IPP teams to elect remote delivery when appropriate.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires DDS to put in place the tools and rules regional centers need to offer remote services as an ongoing option: a service eligibility list, billing subcodes, and written guidance on authorization, billing, and documentation. It also requires regional centers to notify consumers about the voluntary option to receive services remotely.
Who It Affects
Regional centers and the vendors who provide therapies and supports under the Lanterman Act will need to follow the new authorization and billing processes; individual program plan (IPP) teams and families must assess and choose remote delivery where appropriate; DDS must produce and post the implementing guidance.
Why It Matters
By moving remote delivery into statute, the bill replaces ad hoc pandemic directives with a permanent administrative framework — shifting the compliance burden onto DDS, regional centers, and providers, while potentially expanding access for consumers who can benefit from remote services.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 969 adds a new statutory provision directing the Department of Developmental Services to operationalize remote delivery of selected regional center services. The bill contains a simple mandate structure: DDS must determine which services are eligible for remote delivery, create the billing architecture necessary to pay for those services remotely, and publish clear, written guidance for regional centers and service providers describing how to authorize, bill for, and document remote services.
The statute expressly contemplates consumer choice: the option to receive an eligible service remotely is voluntary and tied to the individual program plan (IPP) process. In practice, that means an IPP team — which includes the individual and family — must determine whether remote delivery “would effectively meet the needs” of the person served; if so, the individual and family may elect remote delivery when it is available.Operational requirements land in three practical buckets.
First, DDS must produce a list of remote-eligible services so regional centers and vendors know which supports can be offered offsite. Second, DDS must develop and publish billing subcodes so claims-processing systems can accept remote encounters without ad hoc workarounds.
Third, DDS must distribute and post guidance that lays out the consumer-notice process and the provider-side requirements for authorization, billing, and documentation. The bill also includes a legislative intent statement: it aims to convert temporary pandemic-era directives into a permanent option.The statute does not itself appropriate funds.
That leaves implementation questions about who will fund code development, provider training, technical platforms, and increased administrative oversight. The measure imposes duties (to develop lists/codes and to notify consumers) with few operational details about enforcement, privacy standards, or how remote services will intersect with other funding streams — matters that will fall to DDS rulemaking and regional center policies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
DDS must complete the administrative work to allow remote delivery — including an eligibility list and billing mechanics — on or before July 1, 2027.
The department must develop subcodes (billing codes) to facilitate claims and payment for services delivered remotely.
DDS must publish and distribute guidance for regional centers specifying how to notify individuals/families and the requirements providers must meet for authorization, billing, and documentation.
Regional centers are required, upon receipt of DDS guidance, to inform consumers that remote delivery is an available, voluntary option for approved services.
An individual (and their family) may elect remote delivery only if the IPP team determines during the IPP meeting that remote delivery would effectively meet the individual's needs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Legislative intent to make pandemic-era remote services permanent
This short section states the Legislature's intent: to authorize a permanent extension of remote services that were temporarily permitted by DDS during the COVID-19 pandemic. That framing signals the bill's purpose will be interpreted against the backdrop of prior emergency directives and pilot work on remote services.
Deadline and administrative deliverables for DDS
Subdivision (a) imposes a concrete deadline (on or before July 1, 2027) for DDS to identify which regional center services may be delivered remotely, create the necessary subcodes for billing, and provide updated guidance on authorization, billing, and documentation. Practically, those three deliverables form the core implementation package: an eligibility list tells operators what may be done remotely, subcodes let payors and IT systems accept remote claims, and guidance translates policy into the day-to-day processes regional centers and providers must follow.
Consumer notice and regional center duty to inform
Subdivision (b) requires regional centers to notify consumers about the option to choose remote service delivery once DDS issues guidance. This is a procedural obligation rather than a service mandate — regional centers must inform, not coerce — but the requirement creates administrative work: outreach materials, staff training, and recordkeeping to show notification occurred.
IPP decision rule and voluntary election
Subdivision (c) ties the availability of remote services to the IPP process: remote delivery is an option only if the IPP team determines it will effectively meet the individual's needs, and the individual/family must voluntarily elect it. That places clinical/assessment responsibility on IPP teams and protects consumer choice, but it also raises questions about consistency of determinations across regional centers and potential disputes about what constitutes “effective” remote delivery.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services 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
- Individuals with mobility constraints or who live in areas with sparse in-person services — they gain a statutory pathway to continue supports remotely when appropriate.
- Families and caregivers who need scheduling flexibility or cannot travel frequently to appointments — remote options may reduce travel time and logistic barriers.
- Service providers with telepractice capacity — they gain clearer billing mechanics (subcodes) that can convert remote encounters into reimbursable services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Regional centers — they must develop outreach processes, inform consumers, and integrate the option into IPP workflows, adding administrative burden without an accompanying appropriation.
- Service providers that lack telehealth infrastructure — they will face one-time and ongoing technology, training, and documentation costs to meet the new requirements.
- Department of Developmental Services — DDS must create the eligibility list, billing subcodes, and guidance within the statutory timeline, which may require staff time and systems work; the bill contains no direct appropriation for these tasks.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between expanding access and preserving quality/safeguards: the bill seeks to lock in flexibility (remote delivery) that increases access and convenience, but doing so without detailed technical, privacy, and enforcement standards shifts implementation risk to DDS, regional centers, providers, and families — potentially widening inequities or degrading service quality if the administrative and financial supports are not provided.
The bill creates a statutory framework but leaves many operational specifics to DDS guidance and regional center practice. It does not define critical implementation standards: there is no statutory language setting privacy or data-security requirements for remote sessions, no detail on minimum technical standards or accessibility accommodations, and no enforcement mechanism or penalties for noncompliance.
Those gaps mean outcomes will depend heavily on the quality of the written guidance and the resources DDS allocates to implementation.
Fiscal and equity trade-offs are also unresolved. The bill does not appropriate funds, yet it expects DDS and regional centers to absorb substantive administrative work (code development, guidance creation, outreach, training).
Providers that must invest in hardware, secure platforms, and staff training will face upfront costs; rural and low-income families who could benefit most from remote services may lack reliable internet or devices. Lastly, the statute leaves undefined how remote delivery will interact with other funding rules (for example, Medi‑Cal billing requirements) and with prior pilot findings, so stakeholders should expect follow-up regulation and clarifying policy work before remote delivery operates uniformly across the system.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.