SB 1002: Out-of-state physicians and surgeons: telehealth: license exemption.

Official summary

Legislative Counsel’s Digest (official, as of the latest version). Written by nonpartisan legislative staff; reproduced verbatim.

Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California within the Department of Consumer Affairs and sets forth its powers and duties relating to the licensure and regulation of the practice of medicine by physicians and surgeons. Existing law generally prohibits the practice of medicine without a physician’s and surgeon’s certificate issued by the board.

Existing law authorizes a health care provider to deliver health care via telehealth to a patient pursuant to specified protocols and conditions. Existing law defines “telehealth” as the delivery of health care services and public health via information and communication technologies to facilitate the diagnosis, consultation, treatment, education, care management, and self-management of a patient’s health care, and that telehealth includes synchronous interactions and asynchronous store and forward transfers.

Existing law authorizes an eligible out-of-state physician and surgeon, as defined, to deliver health care via telehealth to an eligible patient. Existing law defines “eligible patient” as a person who, among other requirements, has a life-threatening disease or condition, as defined, and has not been accepted to participate in the clinical trial nearest to their home for the immediately life-threatening disease or condition, as specified, or in the medical judgment of a physician and surgeon, as defined, it is unreasonable for the patient to participate in that clinical trial due to the patient’s current condition and state of disease.

This bill would also include within the definition of “eligible patient” a patient whose immediately life-threatening disease or condition is in remission and the patient is continuing care for that condition with the previously established eligible out-of-state physician and surgeon, and would provide that those patients are not subject to the clinical trial requirement, as specified.

Sponsors

Sponsors by party (alphabetical): Republican 3

“Support” is shown only as formal sponsorship recorded by the legislature. Roll-call votes are available on the official bill page.

Recent official actions

1. June 23, 2026June 23 set for first hearing. Failed passage in committee. (Ayes 6. Noes 6.) Reconsideration granted.
2. June 23, 2026Coauthors revised.
3. June 15, 2026From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
4. May 11, 2026Referred to Com. on B. & P.
5. April 27, 2026In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
6. April 27, 2026Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 4065.) Ordered to the Assembly.
7. April 14, 2026Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
8. April 13, 2026From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
9. March 27, 2026Set for hearing April 13.
10. March 23, 2026From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0. Page 3638.) (March 23). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
11. March 16, 2026Set for hearing March 23.
12. February 18, 2026Referred to Com. on B. P. & E.D.