Editorial: California should expand access to telemedicine

A recent story in the Los Angeles Times highlights the problem of overregulation in California's healthcare system.

After being diagnosed with cancer in 2022, Santa Clarita Valley resident Robin Clough received life-saving care from a Texas oncologist. “Clough had several telemedicine followups with her Houston doctor, which was legal under California law that allows interstate telemedicine for patients with life-threatening conditions,” reports Steve Lopez. “But the law does not apply to patients in remission, and so Clough is forced to travel to Texas for continued care.”

Yes, you’re reading that right. While the law recognizes the benefits of telemedicine for patients facing life-threatening conditions, the heavy hand of the state comes down on ongoing communications with out-of-state doctors the moment patients enter remission. Instead of being able to check in via a phone or computer, Clough has to buy a plane ticket.

California is one of 30 states with such tight restrictions on telemedicine, forcing many patients into a similar predicament.

To address circumstances like this, Sen. Roger Niello, R-Sacramento, introduced Senate Bill 1002 to expand telemedicine access. “These patients sought specialized care beyond California's borders when time was critical, and through that process established a successful, trusted patient-provider relationship that resulted in their improved prognosis,” the bill’s author statement reads. “For these survivors, continuity of care is central to maintaining their health.”

While the bill cleared the state Senate in April with a 35-0 vote (five not voting), it died in the Assembly’s Business and Professions Committee. Long Beach-area Assemblyman Josh Lowenthal and Riverside-area Assemblyman Corey Jackson were among those who voted against it.

Occupational licensing can be a form of consumer protection, sure, but when applied to out-of-state doctors in this manner, it functions primarily as an anti-competitive wall-constraining patient choice regardless of practical necessity or actual patient health.

"We're going to look back one day," Clough’s husband, a doctor himself, told the Times, "and see how ridiculous this is."

He’s got that right.

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published July 22, 2026 at 3:49 PM.