An act to add Section 14021.36 to the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to Medi-Cal.
AB 618 would add Section 14021.36 to the Welfare and Institutions Code to require electronic data sharing among Medi-Cal managed care plans, county specialty mental health plans, Drug Medi-Cal certified programs, and Drug Medi-Cal organized delivery system (DMC-ODS) programs. The stated purpose is to improve treatment and care coordination for Medi-Cal members receiving behavioral health services, and to support implementation of CalAIM and the Behavioral Health Services Act.
The bill directs the California Health and Human Services Agency, in consultation with the Department of Health Care Services and affected stakeholders, to establish the minimum data elements, frequency, and format for exchange. DHCS must develop implementing guidance by March 1, 2026, and publish final guidance by January 1, 2027. The electronic data-sharing requirement would take effect 180 days after the guidance is issued, and DHCS could implement the law through all-county letters, plan letters, bulletins, or similar instructions.
AB 618 also includes explicit privacy protections. It states that the new section cannot be interpreted to weaken federal confidentiality rules, including HIPAA and the federal substance use disorder records protections, and requires the guidance to comply with state health information privacy rules, including permissible uses under existing law. In practice, the bill would create a statewide framework for more routine exchange of behavioral health and managed care information to support coordinated care.
The bill’s impact on state law is to impose a new statutory duty on several Medi-Cal behavioral health and managed care entities to share member data electronically, while giving DHCS and CHHS authority to define the operational details through guidance and stakeholder consultation. It would affect Medi-Cal managed care plans, county mental health plans, substance use disorder treatment providers, and DMC-ODS programs, and it would likely require systems changes, data exchange workflows, and compliance planning across those entities.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes at multiple stages and no recorded opposition in the provided materials. The bill was advanced with 15-0, 11-0, 79-0, and 10-0 votes before later being placed on suspense file and held under submission. The main point of caution is not policy opposition but implementation: the bill’s success depends on how DHCS defines minimum data elements, timing, and privacy-compliant exchange standards, and on whether affected plans and programs can operationalize those requirements without undermining confidentiality protections.
AB 618 would create a new Welfare and Institutions Code section requiring Medi-Cal managed care plans, county specialty mental health plans, Drug Medi-Cal certified programs, and DMC-ODS programs to electronically exchange member data for care coordination. It would authorize DHCS and CHHS to set the minimum data elements, format, and frequency of exchange through stakeholder-driven guidance, with final guidance due by January 1, 2027, and implementation beginning 180 days after that guidance is issued. The bill would not change federal privacy law, but it would require state implementation to conform to HIPAA, federal substance use disorder confidentiality rules, and existing California health information privacy requirements.
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support and little visible controversy over the bill’s core goal of improving behavioral health care coordination. The bill passed committees and the Assembly unanimously or nearly unanimously at each recorded stage. Its later placement on suspense file and being held under submission indicates fiscal or implementation review rather than substantive policy opposition. No committee transcript objections were provided, so the overall sentiment appears favorable, with attention focused on administrative feasibility and privacy compliance.
The main areas of potential contention are implementation burden, data governance, and privacy. Medi-Cal managed care plans, county specialty mental health plans, and substance use disorder programs may differ on what data should be shared, how quickly it should move, and what technical standards should apply. Privacy advocates and providers handling sensitive behavioral health or substance use disorder information may be concerned about ensuring that data exchange does not exceed what HIPAA, 42 CFR Part 2, or state law permits. The bill addresses these concerns by requiring stakeholder consultation and expressly preserving confidentiality protections, but those same issues are likely to shape the guidance and any future debate over compliance costs and operational readiness.