← California State Legislature · All bills
AB 687
Health care coverage: colorectal cancer screening.
Assembly · Health care
What this bill does
This bill would additionally require that coverage if the screening test is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and either meets requirements for coverage established by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as specified, or is included in the most recently published guidelines from the American Cancer Society. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. …
Read the full official summary
Existing law, the Knox-Keene Health Care Service Plan Act of 1975, provides for the licensure and regulation of health care service plans by the Department of Managed Health Care, and makes a willful violation of the act a crime. Existing law provides for the regulation of health insurers by the Department of Insurance. Existing law generally requires a health care service plan contract or a health insurance policy issued, amended, or renewed on or after January 1, 2022, to provide coverage without cost sharing for a colorectal cancer screening test assigned either a grade of A or a grade of B by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and for a required colonoscopy for a positive result on a test with those grades.
This bill would additionally require that coverage if the screening test is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and either meets requirements for coverage established by the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as specified, or is included in the most recently published guidelines from the American Cancer Society. Because a violation of the bill by a health care service plan would be a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (1)
June 5, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 56 yes · 3 no · 20 other
Yes (56): Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, Juan Alanis, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Sade Elhawary, Stan Ellis, Heath Flora, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Heather Hadwick, Joshua Hoover, Jacqui Irwin, Jeff Gonzalez, Maggy Krell, Tom Lackey, Josh Lowenthal, Ali Macedo, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephanie Nguyen, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Joe Patterson, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Kate Sanchez, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Greg Wallis, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (3): Alex Lee, Chris Rogers, Rick Zbur
Other / no vote recorded (20): Dawn Addis, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Mia Bonta, Jessica Caloza, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, James Gallagher, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Al Muratsuchi, Liz Ortega, James Ramos, Pilar Schiavo, Avelino Valencia
Official motion wording
AB 687 Patterson Assembly Third Reading
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov