AB 1637 limits changes to physician medical record entries
Oct 4, 2026 edition · GC-2026-0217 · Published 2026-10-04 · Version 2 · Final
AB 1637 makes the authoring physician responsible for patient notes across clinical settings and limits who may change them. Its final text expressly preserves delegated documentation, additions after a transfer of care and supervising-physician edits to specified trainee notes.
What happened
California enacted AB 1637 on September 27, adding Business and Professions Code section 2266.1 to the Medical Practice Act. The provision makes a physician and surgeon responsible for their patient notes regardless of the clinical setting. Patient notes include notes, after-visit summaries, and diagnosis and treatment plans. The basic rule is that no one other than the authoring physician and surgeon may alter, modify or edit that material, subject to the law’s specific exceptions. The change therefore reaches more than a signed progress note: the statutory definition also covers patient-facing summaries and plans. The enactment is the event reported here; the applicable commencement of these provisions must be confirmed separately.
The final text permits a scribe, medical assistant or other authorized individual to act under authority delegated by the authoring physician. It also permits a physician receiving a transferred patient to add to the prior author’s notes, and permits a supervising physician to alter, modify or edit the notes of a supervised postgraduate training licensee, intern, resident or postdoctoral fellow. The transfer exception is framed as permission to add, while the trainee-supervision exception expressly addresses editing. These exceptions preserve defined team documentation arrangements alongside the author’s responsibility; they do not grant every staff member unrestricted editing access.
Scope and timing
- Authority status
- Final
- Applicability
- Potentially applicable
- Audience
- Health systems, Provider networks, Health-tech
- Jurisdiction
- California
Why it matters
EHR permissions can affect the accuracy and ownership of clinical records even when a workflow is described internally as routine documentation support. A blanket ban would disrupt the express delegation and supervision pathways, while broad shared access could erase the distinction between adding after transfer and changing another physician’s work.
Recommended action
Confirm the applicable commencement before treating the new provisions as current duties. Prepare the following for implementation at that commencement: Map permissions for notes, after-visit summaries and diagnosis and treatment plans to the author, an authorized delegate, the receiving physician or the trainee’s supervisor. Document delegated authority and preserve attribution and amendment history as implementation controls. Review transfer workflows specifically so that permission to add is not treated as unrestricted permission to rewrite.
Sources
- AB1637 enacted final textOfficial · California Legislature · 2026-09-27 · Source review 2026-10-05
Complete edition and supplemental material
This finding in the complete approved report →Regulatory horizons, CIA trends and implementation trackers remain in the full report.
Read the entire Compliance Sweep report →