An act to add and repeal Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 127575) of Part 2 of Division 107 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to health care.
AB 356 creates a temporary, San Diego County-specific health policy study process focused on the northern region of the county. It requires the Department of Health Care Access and Information to convene a working group to examine how health care districts in that region are structured, what responsibilities they have to provide services, and whether current resources, funding, and governance arrangements are sufficient to ensure adequate access to care, including for underserved and vulnerable residents.
The working group must include representatives from the Palomar, Fallbrook, and Tri-City Health Care Districts, the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission, the San Diego legislative delegation, hospitals, trade associations, labor interests, and other stakeholders the department deems relevant. The group must report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature by June 1, 2026, and the chapter is scheduled to repeal on June 1, 2030. The bill also states that it does not alter any existing statutory, regulatory, or contractual obligations of public health care providers or health care districts in the region.
The bill adds a new, county-specific chapter to the Health and Safety Code governing health care districts in northern San Diego County. Its practical effect is to direct a state department to organize a formal stakeholder study and produce recommendations, rather than to immediately change district powers, funding, or service obligations. It also creates a special statute for this region, reflecting the Legislature’s finding that the area’s integrated health district system warrants tailored treatment under the state constitution.
The bill appears to have generally favorable support in the Legislature, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee votes and a strong Assembly floor vote. The available vote history suggests broad agreement that the issue merits study and that the proposed working group is a reasonable first step. There is no transcript evidence of opposition in the materials provided, and the bill advanced through committees with no recorded dissent in the cited votes.
The main point of potential contention is not whether the study should occur, but whether a region-specific statute is necessary and whether the working group’s recommendations could eventually lead to changes in local health district governance, funding, or service delivery. The bill explicitly says it does not change existing obligations, which may have been intended to address concerns from districts, hospitals, labor, or local agencies about unintended legal effects. Another possible issue is the inclusion and balance of stakeholders, since the working group brings together public districts, hospitals, labor, and legislative representatives in a process that could surface competing views on responsibility for access, financing, and organizational structure.