California Assembly Bill AB1366

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/21/25
• Refer: 3/28/25
• Report Pass: 3/28/25
• Refer: 4/1/25
• Report Pass: 1/5/26
• Refer: 1/6/26
• Report Pass: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/13/26
• Refer: 1/22/26
• Failed: 2/2/26

Caption

An act to amend Section 1368.5 of the Health and Safety Code, to amend Section 10125.1 of the Insurance Code, and to amend Sections 14132.968 and 14132.969 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to relating to healing arts.

Impact

If enacted, AB 1366 would notably adjust the reimbursement framework, where presently, pharmacist services receive reimbursement at 85% of the physician service fee schedule. With the proposed alignment, it balances the reimbursement incentives for advanced practice pharmacists, thereby encouraging wider provider participation in health service offerings. Additionally, the bill includes mandating that health care service plans and disability insurers reimburse eligible advanced practice pharmacists for services rendered, which promotes the integration of pharmacy services in health care delivery.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1366, introduced by Assembly Member Flora, aims to amend existing laws pertaining to the reimbursement of pharmacist services in California. Specifically, it seeks to establish that the rates of reimbursement for advanced practice pharmacists will be set at the same level as those for licensed physicians. This amendment is significant as it reflects an evolving recognition of the role of pharmacists in providing essential health services, especially within the Medi-Cal program, which serves low-income individuals. The bill anticipates federal approval to align the Medi-Cal reimbursements with these updated provisions, focusing on enhancing the value and accessibility of pharmacist-provided care.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding AB 1366 seems to be supportive among health care advocates and professionals who view the bill as a step toward recognizing the indispensable contributions of pharmacists in patient care. However, there are concerns regarding potential regulatory implications and the financial impact on state programs. Opponents may argue that while the intent to enhance pharmacist capabilities is valid, the fiscal responsibilities without corresponding budget adjustments could strain existing health care frameworks, thereby complicating care delivery.

Contention

Noteworthy points of contention include the potential challenges in implementing these changes without the requisite federal approvals, which are essential for the effective function of the Medi-Cal program. Furthermore, the bill introduces provisions that classify willful violations of the reimbursement mandates as crimes, thus imposing a state-mandated local program. This aspect raises discussions around regulatory overreach and its implications for the health care service landscape, particularly how compliance will be monitored and enforced.