An act to add Sections 1234.1, 1264.1, and 124441 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to health providers.
AB 849 requires certain health care providers that perform ultrasound examinations involving sensitive body areas to notify patients that a trained medical chaperone will be available upon request. The bill defines “sensitive examination” to include ultrasound exams of the genitalia, breast, rectum, and pubic or groin region, and applies the requirement across three provider categories: clinics, general acute care hospitals, and certain other providers covered by the Health and Safety Code. Notice may be given in hard copy, electronically, or verbally, and if a patient requests a chaperone, the provider must supply one for the examination and document that presence in the patient’s health record.
The bill also requires providers to train sonographers and any clinical or nonclinical staff who may serve as chaperones on patient draping, neutrality, observational and intervention techniques, and reporting procedures for inappropriate behavior. Providers may decline to perform a sensitive examination if they determine a chaperone must be present and one is not available. In emergency care settings, providers must inform patients of chaperone availability when feasible. The new requirements become operative on January 1, 2027.
AB 849 amends the Health and Safety Code by adding Sections 1234.1, 1264.1, and 124441, creating parallel chaperone rules for different provider types. Because violations of the underlying health facility and clinic provisions can be criminally enforceable, the bill is treated as creating a state-mandated local program, though it states no reimbursement is required. It also excludes facilities owned or operated by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and in one section excludes facilities licensed by the State Department of Public Health.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history was strongly favorable and largely bipartisan. The bill moved through committee and floor votes with wide margins, including unanimous or near-unanimous votes in later stages and only one recorded no vote on the Assembly floor. That pattern suggests broad support for the patient-safety and privacy rationale behind the measure.
The main point of potential contention is operational burden rather than policy direction: providers must ensure chaperone availability, staff training, documentation, and coordination when a chaperone is unavailable, which may be more difficult for smaller or resource-constrained facilities. The bill also gives providers discretion to refuse the exam if they believe a chaperone is necessary but unavailable, and it applies only to ultrasound-based sensitive examinations, which may have prompted questions about scope and implementation rather than opposition to the underlying goal.
AB 849 adds new patient-notice, staffing, training, and documentation requirements to the Health and Safety Code for clinics, hospitals, and certain other health providers that perform sensitive ultrasound examinations. It expands regulatory obligations for providers offering these services, while leaving existing licensure and enforcement structures in place. Because the bill ties compliance to provisions that can be enforced as crimes under existing law, it may increase compliance and administrative costs for covered facilities and is treated as a state-mandated local program, though the act declares no reimbursement is required.
The bill appears to have enjoyed broad support throughout the legislative process. Committee and floor votes were overwhelmingly positive, with several unanimous votes and only one recorded dissent on the Assembly floor. The voting pattern suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward patient-protection bill focused on privacy, comfort, and professionalism in sensitive medical settings.
The likely areas of concern were practical implementation issues rather than the bill’s core purpose. Providers may have worried about staffing a trained chaperone on short notice, especially in smaller clinics, emergency settings, or facilities with limited personnel. The bill also allows a provider to decline the exam if it believes a chaperone must be present and none is available, which reflects an operational safeguard but could create delays or access issues. No formal transcript opposition is provided, so any contention appears to have been limited or resolved during amendments.