SB 306 Changes the Prior Authorization Landscape

California’s SB 306 represents a meaningful shift in how prior authorization is governed and monitored. The statute requires health plans and insurers to report detailed prior authorization data and directs regulators to eliminate prior authorization requirements for services that are almost always approved.

The intent is straightforward: reduce administrative burden, increase transparency, and remove friction where authorization adds little value.

For providers, the opportunity is real — but not automatic.

SB 306 does not, by itself, change payer behavior. It creates conditions under which prepared organizations can influence it.

What SB 306 Actually Does

SB 306 requires plans to submit data on prior authorization requests, approvals, and denials. Regulators will use that data to identify services that are approved at very high rates and publish lists of services for which prior authorization must be eliminated over time.

The earliest impacts will be administrative: fewer redundant authorizations, clearer expectations, and improved visibility into payer decision patterns.

The longer-term impact depends on how effectively providers use the transparency SB 306 creates.

What SB 306 Does Not Do

SB 306 does not guarantee faster payment.

It does not eliminate denials.

It does not replace governance, ownership, or disciplined execution.

Organizations that view SB 306 as a passive benefit are unlikely to see material change. Those that treat it as an operational signal can.

Preparing for SB 306: A Provider Engagement Strategy

The organizations best positioned to benefit from SB 306 are already doing the following.

1. Track Prior Authorization Outcomes as a Performance Signal

SB 306 elevates prior authorization data from a workflow artifact to a regulatory input.

Providers should begin tracking:

• Approval rates by service and payer
• Turnaround times
• Rework caused by redundant or low-value authorization requests

This data supports both internal workflow optimization and informed payer discussions.

2. Align Front-End Operations Early

Prior authorization touches scheduling, clinical documentation, utilization management, and patient access. SB 306 reinforces the need for early alignment across those teams.

Providers that standardize intake, documentation, and submission practices will be better positioned as authorization requirements evolve.

This is less about compliance and more about consistency.

3. Centralize Ownership for Authorization Governance

As prior authorization requirements change, decentralized ownership creates confusion.

Providers should designate clear accountability for:

• Monitoring payer authorization behavior
• Interpreting regulatory updates
• Updating SOPs as services are removed from authorization requirements

This is a governance issue, not a desk-level one.

4. Engage Payers with Data, Not Frustration

SB 306 creates an opportunity to move payer conversations from anecdotal to data-driven.

Prepared organizations can:

• Reference published authorization trends
• Identify services that no longer warrant routine authorization
• Challenge redundant requirements with regulatory context

The goal is not confrontation. It is normalization of efficient behavior.

5. Train for Change, Not Statute

Front-line staff do not need to interpret SB 306. They need clarity on what has changed, what has not, and when escalation is appropriate.

Step-by-step SOP updates and targeted training will matter more than statutory education.

Execution still wins.

What Prepared Providers Can Expect

Over time, organizations that actively prepare for SB 306 can expect:

• Reduced administrative friction for high-approval services
• Clearer payer expectations
• Fewer redundant authorization touchpoints
• Improved throughput and staff efficiency

Financial benefit follows operational discipline — not legislation alone.

Closing Perspective

SB 306 changes the rules around prior authorization.

It does not change execution.

Providers that prepare, align, and engage proactively will see the benefit first.

Those that wait will see little difference.

Regulatory change creates opportunity.

Structure determines who captures it.